Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Energy Supplies

Graham Stuart: What discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and others about the security of the UK's energy supply.

Eric Illsley: What assessment he has made of the level of UK gas supplies to industry for this winter.

Alan Johnson: My ministerial team and I have regular meetings about the security of the UK's energy supply, and particularly about the position for the forthcoming winter. We have also had discussions with a wide range of energy stakeholders. The gas market is likely to be tighter this year, compared with previous years, because of a larger than anticipated decline in North sea gas supplies. However, as Ofgem and National Grid have made clear, under normal weather conditions there are sufficient gas supplies and electricity generation to meet expected demand. Even in the severest of winters, their analysis shows that the market can maintain supplies. In all credible scenarios, energy supplies will be maintained for domestic customers.

Graham Stuart: We are a net importer of gas, yet we have no strategic reserve. We have liberalised gas markets, yet we have stood by while continental countries artificially protect theirs. UK businesses and consumers pay higher prices as a result. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents at Electro Furnace Products in Saltend that their jobs are safe from gas cuts and artificial price hikes?

Alan Johnson: It is no good me giving answers if hon.   Members do not listen to them. As Ofgem and National Grid have made clear, under normal weather conditions, there are sufficient gas supplies and electricity generation to meet expected demand. Their analysis shows that, even in the severest of winters, the market will be able to maintain supplies. In relation to the hon. Gentleman's first point, we have moved from being a net exporter of gas to being a net importer. We are just in that process. As a result, the market is responding. As I said in my answer, the supply of gas from the North sea has run down more quickly than anyone expected it to. Nevertheless, that is what we have banked as our storage. Just as the Netherlands and Norway have no storage capacity because they have large gas fields, we still have significant storage there. We have a whole series of measures coming in before the winter, and another whole series next year. I would say to Conservative Members that the market really is working.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Eric Illsley is not here. I call Mr.   Luff.

Peter Luff: In his evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on Monday, the Minister for Energy confirmed that there would be a real risk of interruptions to supply for gas users this winter if, as the Met Office predicts, we have a colder than average winter. The Minister also said that he was prepared to consider certain exemptions, to maximise flexibility in the response to gas users, such as temporary exemptions from emissions regulations or from climate change regulations. Will the Secretary of State tell us what discussions he is having with industry and with his colleagues in the Government to bring forward those sensible proposals?

Alan Johnson: I was aware of the hearing that took place with the Minister for Energy earlier this week. I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman of scaremongering in any way, although there are plenty of others around who are scaremongering on this issue. My hon. Friend the Minister was describing what would happen if there were a one in 50 winter. That is not being predicted by the Met Office, but we have discussed with the energy intensive users group a range of measures that might need to be put in place in such circumstances. That, however, is a long way from frightening domestic customers by saying that they are going to have their supplies cut off.
	On the hon. Gentleman's other point, he and his Committee have quite properly explored what would happen in an emergency, if there were a one in 50 winter, which we are not predicting at the moment. They have asked what measures would be in place to deal with such a situation. It was in that context that my hon. Friend the Minister talked about emissions, from chemical plants in particular. Such measures would need the authority of the Environment Agency, and no one would want to take such steps, even in the most extreme conditions. Nevertheless, the Government have to have contingency measures in place. The problem with talking about them is that we might give the impression that we are going to need them, but, as my answer has clearly demonstrated, and as the winter outlook report from National Grid and Ofgem shows, we do not expect to be in that situation this winter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a duty to get through the Order Paper. May I ask the Secretary of State for briefer replies?

Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that we do not need any lectures from the party that got rid of clean coal technology, shut the pits, and privatised our gas interests? What we do need is to ensure that in the forthcoming years—not just this one—we save what remains of the British coal industry, introduce the necessary clean coal technology, stop handing out large sums of money to UK Coal, which is using it for property development and shutting pits, and start a process such as the one at Tower colliery in Wales, where the miners themselves are able to produce the coal.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am also looking for brief supplementary questions.

Alan Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend about the record of the previous Government in respect of coal and the environmental damage left behind from the pits that they closed down. While I do not think that we will see the days of king coal again, coal is having a resurgence, and it will be a central feature of the energy review that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced recently. On the final point, we are investing £25 million, as we announced recently, to develop new carbon abatement technology such as carbon capture and storage, so there are some exciting developments that were not around even in 2003 when we published our energy White Paper.

Tim Yeo: Why do the Government continue to dither over nuclear power? Is it not clear to the Secretary of State that the long-term security of our energy supplies and the achievement of our environmental commitments depends on an early decision to commission a new generation of nuclear power stations?

Alan Johnson: Where I agree with the hon. Gentleman is on the point that a decision needs to be made soon on whether we go for new build or not. That must be seen in the context of the entire energy mix: energy renewal, security of supply and energy abatement. Those issues need to be considered together. That is why, rather than   dithering, the Prime Minister has announced a comprehensive review, the details of which will be announced soon.

Anthony D Wright: Whenever there is a threat of a shortage of anything, the   price of that product invariably increases. In the unlikely event of a shortage in gas supply over the coming winter, will my right hon. Friend guarantee that we will not cease in our efforts to reduce fuel poverty? Over the past eight years, the fuel poverty strategy has taken 4 million people out of fuel poverty, and I fear that, if the price increases over the winter months because of shortage, more people will fall into it.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue: we have taken 4 million people out of fuel poverty, including 1 million of the most vulnerable. Now that gas   prices have increased, because they are linked to oil prices, which have increased, we must redouble our efforts. We have recently announced a free helpline to provide people with advice on insulation and so on. We need to take other measures. The £200 winter fuel allowance this year—£300 for the over-80s—will be a welcome contribution to tackling those problems.

Norman Lamb: The Secretary of State will be aware that National Grid estimates that large energy users would have to give up some 3.7 billion cu m of gas in the event of a repeat of the 1963 big freeze, unlikely though it might be, to keep gas flowing to the domestic sector. Is it not crazy that the Government are   now contemplating an opt-out from the emissions trading scheme? Would it not have been better to have followed the advice of the International Energy Agency and many other experts in pursuing a much more vigorous assault on energy waste?

Alan Johnson: First, no one is predicting a 1963 winter—[Interruption.] I repeat that nobody, in the Met Office, is predicting that. Secondly, major users, to whom we talk all the time, and who have a serious problem—this is not to diminish that—in the event that we have severe weather conditions, have interruptible contracts. They sign those interruptible contracts on the basis that they would get a lower price, and they could, as they recognise, through energy efficiency, sell some of their supplies back on to the market and make a profit in a tight energy situation. I therefore believe that we have the right framework in place even if we have the most extreme winter conditions.

Paddy Tipping: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is an element of scaremongering occurring? There is no question of domestic customers being cut off this year. Things might be tight for industrial consumers, but in the longer term will not new pipelines resolve the issue of gas supply?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right. We have doubled the capacity of the Belgian interconnector and introduced the new liquefied natural gas facility that has opened at the Isle of Grain in the Thames estuary. Other measures are being taken this year and more will be taken next year. On the scaremongering issue, one newspaper that puts lurid headlines above journalistic accuracy said that there would be a blackout. It quoted a guy called Jonathan Smith, the media relations manager of E. ON UK. He wrote to the newspaper. It did not publish the letter, but he copied it to me. It states:
	"Throughout my conversations with your journalists I stressed that we at E.ON UK did not believe there would be any power and gas problems this winter . . . At no point during the course of the article"
	is it said
	"that E.ON UK does not believe that there will be power cuts this winter . . . The article as printed is simply not a true and accurate representation of the conversation that I had with your journalist and, as such, is unacceptable."

David Willetts: I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State is still here. I had half expected him to be sent back to the scene of his old triumphs in the Department for Work and Pensions.
	Last week the Leader of the House was asked whether the Government could
	"guarantee energy supplies to business and domestic consumers this winter".—[Official Report, 26 October 2005; Vol. 438, c.   299–300.]
	The Leader of the House replied "Yes, they can". Will the Secretary of State repeat that guarantee today? If he cannot—and I suspect that he cannot—will he at least recognise that we need a clear contingency plan in case supplies are indeed interrupted this winter?

Alan Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I was looking forward to him becoming leader of his party, but now that he has hitched his star to Haltemprice and Howden—not Witney—perhaps it is not to be.
	Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's very serious point. At present, we have the extra capacity that I just mentioned. I could also have mentioned the new gas storage facility at Humbly Grove in Hampshire. In the unlikely event of severe winter conditions, we can switch from gas and electricity generation to coal generation. We have mothballed plant that we have made ready for   use, at Didcot for coal, at Grain for oil and at Killingholme, where there is a combined cycle gas turbine. Moreover, as I said earlier, big users can reduce their energy demand and sell back to the grid. We do not expect any fuel supply problems this winter.

David Willetts: I note that the Secretary of State did not repeat the guarantee that the Leader of the House gave during Prime Minister's Question Time last week. Many energy consumers will have noticed that.
	I am pleased that we are making some progress this morning. We are beginning to hear about contingency plans being made in case this happens, although we all hope very much that it will not. May I press the Secretary of State further, however? What we need now is for him to publish an authoritative account of the steps that he will take if there is a threat to our energy supplies during a harsh winter, so that industry and business know where they stand. That is the least he can do.

Alan Johnson: The National Grid published its preliminary outlook in May. It published its final outlook last month. We share the wish for a debate on the Floor of the House that has been expressed by the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends. That has been dealt with by the usual channels, but we agree that   the debate should take place here rather than in Westminster Hall. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy is meeting intensive energy users and others daily, and the Trade and Industry Committee is conducting an important investigation.
	We must not over-egg the pudding and cause people to become unnecessarily frightened. It would be entirely different if the Met Office were predicting a one in 50 winter and if the National Grid's report were predicting problems. That is not the case, and we therefore have an obligation not to scaremonger. The hon. Gentleman has no such obligation, and nor have any of his Front-Bench colleagues, but others have. We must ensure that such scaremongering is quashed by responsible behaviour in the House.

Energy Policy

David Borrow: If he will instigate a public debate on United Kingdom energy policy.

Alan Johnson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) should not stare at me. I know that when he stands it means that he wants to be called. I will call him when I want to call him.

Alan Johnson: As the Prime Minister has announced, we will publish proposals on energy policy next year, embracing our continuing commitment to tackling climate change, preserving reliable supplies of energy and maintaining competitive markets. Public debate will play a key role in developing those policy proposals.

David Borrow: A few weeks ago, I met civil engineers in the north-west, who recently produced an infrastructure report on the region. The report makes it clear that their   biggest concern is the effect that phasing out nuclear power stations will have on energy supply in the north-west. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only if we can build public consensus on a long-term energy policy will we ensure that we take the right decisions? Without public support for that policy, it will founder.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right. In line with the commitment that we gave in the 2003 White Paper, if the   result of the new review announced by the Prime Minister is that we should go down the nuclear new build route—that is a very big if, because factors such as waste and cost have to be taken into account—we will need to publish another White Paper and to have the widest possible consultation. A very healthy public debate is going on, but it is very different from that which took place even as recently as 2003 in terms of climate change and the need for security of supply. I   hope that we can ensure a proper, comprehensive debate that examines the issues, instead of people taking stances based on, perhaps, an ideological viewpoint. Taking such stances will not help us to have the kind of debate that my hon. Friend and I want.

Robert Key: I am very grateful to   you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. Your earlier admonition gives a whole new meaning to "catching your eye".
	May I press the Secretary of State on nuclear energy? Does he share my view that public opinion is changing very rapidly and that the scaremongering of those opposed to nuclear energy is now receding? Does he further agree that, as people see their domestic energy bills rise sharply, and as their desire to see us meet Kyoto and beyond increases, they now understand that there is a serious debate to be had about the role of nuclear energy? After all, we are not that different from the French, and in France 83.4 per cent. of electricity is nuclear-generated.—[Interruption.]

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks) points out that the hon. Gentleman is the first Conservative to admit that we are not that different from the French; however, I shall pass over that point. The hon. Gentleman is right. The public are aware of the issues and they are willing to engage in a constructive debate about them. I very much hope that we can have that debate. We need to ensure that we publish a White Paper that examines all the arguments and issues, such as waste, cost and renewable energy alternatives. If that is   done properly, it will form the basis of a very constructive debate, regardless of the conclusion reached.

Eric Illsley: I apologise for not being in my place when my question was called a   few moments ago. There was a time when, if a question   was to be linked to another, the Department in   question had the courtesy to inform the Member concerned.
	Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this country has enough gas reserves for industrial consumers this winter? Comparisons have been made with the rest of Europe, and some countries have up to 11 or 12 days of   reserves, whereas we have only two or three days.

Alan Johnson: Our having only two or three days of gas supply is one of the myths being peddled. It does not take into account that very big storage tank called the North sea. All things being equal, we have some 77 days of gas supply that we can provide in the event of an emergency. I hope that we can reassure my hon. Friend's constituents that we are on top of this issue. There is no way that the Government could have been any better at predicting the need for the market to change, and nor is there any way that the public purse could have provided the £10 billion that the private sector is providing to ensure that we get the balance between supply and demand right. This will be a tight year if we are hit by very bad weather conditions, but after this year we will get the balance absolutely right.

Gregory Campbell: There is widespread support for the promotion of renewable energy projects across the United Kingdom, but there is concern about such projects being located in   areas of outstanding natural beauty. Will the right hon.   Gentleman ensure that the Northern Ireland Office is aware of my constituents' continuing opposition to the proposed location of an offshore wind farm off the north coast of Northern Ireland? The entire community is united in its opposition to such a project being located there.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point on behalf of his constituents. Proper planning processes must be followed and any problem in   Northern Ireland will certainly be examined by the   correct authorities. Our investment in renewables means that 2005 will be a record year, with production of power from wind totalling 500 MW. That is a very   important contribution to our climate change obligations and targets, and to our security of supply. Obviously, renewable energy projects must not be introduced without the proper planning consent, which must take into account the needs of areas of outstanding natural beauty such as the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Anne Begg: Any debate about future energy policy must be concerned about balance and not get caught up in the all the noise and discussion about the nuclear industry, important though that may be. The North sea still has plenty of oil and gas and those resources remain very important to the economy of the north-east of Scotland and of Britain as a whole. Does my right hon. Friend agree that new technologies mean that oil and gas still have a future?

Alan Johnson: I agree completely with my hon. Friend, and I take this opportunity to underline what has been said by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy—and, indeed, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The energy review will be balanced, as we need diversity in our energy supply and there is no point in putting all our eggs in one basket. That means that we must look at all available energy sources—coal, renewables, fossil fuels and nuclear.

Bernard Jenkin: I welcome the Secretary of State's consensual tone in respect of the energy review but, by any measure, the present policy is   failing. The difficulties with security of supply are reflected in the current high prices, while fuel poverty and carbon emissions are both rising. Why is the review not being conducted more urgently? Will he discuss its terms of reference with all the main political parties so that the public consensus that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) asked him to pursue can be achieved?

Alan Johnson: I disagree that there is a problem with   the market approach to energy, as I think that it is working very well. After all, the Canadian Government caused a disaster when they decided to intervene in Montreal, and the recovery there is still going on. The hon. Gentleman talks about consensus, but first there needs to be consensus between the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and the right hon. Member for   Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). Then perhaps we will achieve consensus across the House.

Globalisation

John MacDougall: What steps he is taking to monitor the impact of globalisation on UK manufacturing and services.

Alun Michael: We are acutely aware of the impact of globalisation and the challenges for UK manufacturing and services. The Government are committed to providing the right macroeconomic conditions and support through the manufacturing strategy to help companies to meet the challenges and to compete on the basis of high skills and added value.

John MacDougall: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that manufacturing industry accounts for one sixth of the UK economy. The industrialisation of China and other low-wage economies will have a severe impact here. Does he believe that the Government are well placed to deal with that impact?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right about the size of the manufacturing sector, and about the contribution that it makes to the economy. He is also right to point to the impact made by China, India and some other countries, as they now aspire to be at the cutting edge of manufacturing rather then just to produce low-value goods. However, their development provides us with large emerging markets that we should regard as an opportunity rather than a threat. Through the manufacturing strategy, we are working with manufacturing industry to face up to those challenges.

Julie Kirkbride: One of the highest-profile examples of globalisation is the sale of the MG Rover car manufacturer in my constituency to the Chinese. Is the Minister aware that DTI officials confirmed to the Trade and Industry Committee the other week that the platform for mass-produced Rover cars has been shipped to China lock, stock and barrel? That is a great disappointment to my constituents, but the officials also confirmed that so far they had held no negotiations with Nanjing Automotive Corporation in respect of the company's long-standing promise that it would reinstate mass production at Longbridge. That is a very worrying and sad development: is it true, and what will the right hon. Gentleman do about it?

Alun Michael: I am certainly not going to go into the details of what are commercial matters for the company. The Government engaged very rapidly once the impact of the Rover decisions was known and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade remains closely in touch with the   company. We are also working carefully with the   whole supply chain. Despite the Rover issue, the automotive industry is a success story in this country. The   contribution made by automotive producers to the economy is considerable, and continues to be strong.

David Anderson: This country will always have problems when we are competing with countries such as Bangladesh, where, as has been reported this week, 5 million children are working for 35p an hour. In 1999, the Government went to the World Trade Organisation in Seattle very committed to negotiating a labour scheme. Will we have that sort of debate at the WTO in Hong Kong, or are we to let this situation continue?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend points to exploitation, which is unacceptable. That is why we strongly support the approach through the International Labour Organisation to deal with such issues. He is right to highlight the situation, which is an international scandal and this country is at the forefront of seeking international action to tackle those problems.

Charles Hendry: The Minister is being frighteningly complacent. We are seeing a collapse of manufacturing employment, with 1 million jobs lost in manufacturing since this Government came to power, and its share of GDP falling from one fifth to one sixth. Even more worryingly, there is now a loss of jobs in the service sector and the professions, too, and it is only the huge growth in the public sector that masks that. Does the Minister not understand that the Government are part of the problem? Higher taxes, more regulations and cosy deals with the trade unions are making this country less competitive, and driving investment away to eastern Europe and Asia. Does he recognise that the tragedy is that business is telling the Government what is wrong, and it is only the Government who do not recognise the extent of the challenges?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be speaking at the Dispatch Box, not the ranting box. I   shall take no lessons from somebody who was part of   a Conservative Government under whom interest rates were at 15 per cent. for a full year, about 1,000 businesses went bust every week and unemployment stood at 3 million. He has the cheek to try to give us lessons, but I have to say to him that since I came to this job I have been impressed by the way in   which manufacturing industry works with the Government, because those people know the value of the manufacturing strategy that we established in 2002 to help manufacturing industry. They know where their friends are.

Ashok Kumar: May I urge my right hon. Friend not to take any lectures from the Tory party on manufacturing? We lost 50,000 jobs on Teesside when the Tories were in power. Does he agree that one of the key components of a successful manufacturing country is investment in research and development? What efforts is he making to ask the private sector to invest more   in   R and D so that we can have a successful manufacturing sector?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right. What is strong is the partnership with manufacturing industry involving initiatives such as the materials centre that we opened recently on the Isle of Wight, and the fact that our manufacturing strategy is based on applying science and innovation, world-class practice, raising investment and a high level of skills. That all depends on high standards and good leadership in manufacturing industry, and leaders in that industry are acting as partners with us to tackle those issues, so our industry will be successful.

Subsidised Electricity

Matthew Taylor: What saving in the typical household bill has resulted from the subsidy to electricity consumers in northern Scotland under the scheme introduced in April.

Malcolm Wicks: If we had not replaced the hydro benefit scheme, the typical household bill in northern Scotland would have gone up by £27 per year and fuel poverty in the area would have increased by around 15 per cent.

Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister have a word with his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to explain why a subsidy is provided that saves electricity bill payers in northern Scotland £27 a year, paid for by electricity consumers across the rest of the country and legislated for by this Government, when they rule out help for South West Water customers, who pay double the London bills—not £200, but £400 on average? Those bills are set to rise to £700, even though they are already the highest in the country and are clearly unaffordable. Why is it that electricity customers can be helped in the north of Scotland, but no such help can be allowed for South West Water bill payers?

Malcolm Wicks: It is a clever link, but each utility has different circumstances, ownership, regulatory regimes and costs. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment has talked to the hon. Gentleman about that matter. I do not want to get into deep water, so I will not trespass on DEFRA territory.

Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend has one of the longest track records in tackling and understanding fuel poverty. Will he therefore do all he can to help those of us who are determined to tackle water poverty and bring the issue not only to the attention of Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but those in   the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury? We need all the help we can get to tackle that serious problem.

Malcolm Wicks: We certainly recognise concern about high water bills in the south-west. The cross-Government review of water affordability was published in December 2004, I believe, and my colleagues are following up its recommendations. I will obviously bring those concerns to the attention of my colleagues in DEFRA.

Nuclear-generated Electricity

Desmond Swayne: If   he will make a statement on the future of nuclear-generated electricity.

Malcolm Wicks: As part of   our general policy to focus on the climate, reliability of energy supplies and affordability for the customer, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that we will publish proposals on energy policy next year, and the question of civil nuclear power will be thoroughly and objectively considered.

Desmond Swayne: Is not nuclear energy a renewable source of energy?

Malcolm Wicks: There is a technical debate about that. Certainly, nuclear energy shares some scientific characteristics with wind and solar energy. However, although there is a lot of uranium around, it is by definition not a renewable. In any case, those scientific distinctions do not have any impact on the different policy courses that we need to follow.

David Chaytor: Will my hon.   Friend remind the House what happened to the last Prime Minister who promised to build 10 new nuclear power stations and remind us how many of them were built?

Malcolm Wicks: I am happy to take history tutorials from my hon. Friend, but the fact is that if we are reviewing energy policy, it makes sense to look scientifically and objectively at the question of the future generation of nuclear energy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have both said that we are nuclear-neutral at present. In other words, we approach the matter open-minded, but not empty-headed.

Michael Jack: At a recent meeting   at the Westinghouse fuels division plant in my   constituency, the trade unions rightly drew my attention to the world-class nature of our nuclear fuels manufacturing capability. However, if there is a positive outcome for nuclear in the debate to which the Minister referred, may I have his assurance that the time scale will be short enough to ensure that the skills may be retained in our UK fuel manufacturing capability?

Malcolm Wicks: It is certainly the case that the nuclear industry, like other parts of the energy industry, such as oil and gas exploration, is demographically challenged—to use the terrible jargon. In other words, there are more people aged 50 and over than there are younger entrants. I am giving some priority to the skills issue in the energy industry generally and I have discussed it already with the nuclear industry and other parts of the energy sector. Britain, and especially Scotland, is a centre of excellence for energy, not least because of the skills of our work force, and we need to maintain and improve on that.

Anne Moffat: My hon. Friend will be aware that I am pro-nuclear—as opposed to the position he set out as regards himself, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister in relation to the review—on the basis that there is a nuclear power station in my constituency and 50 per cent. of Scotland's electricity is generated from nuclear power. As there is a possibility of new build, does my hon. Friend share my concerns that the devolved Parliament in Scotland will try to use its planning permission powers to prevent that?

Malcolm Wicks: That is an important secondary, or tertiary, question but the primary question is whether, having studied the evidence, the Government should give a lead in a new generation of nuclear. We are not there yet. If we did so decide—I repeat, if—those important issues about Scotland and planning would need to be discussed among colleagues.

Pre-payment Meters

Edward Leigh: Whether the number of people using gas and electricity pre-payment meters has changed as a result of the measures Ofgem has taken to improve billing practice and tighten suppliers' licence conditions.

Malcolm Wicks: In July 2005, following a complaint by Energywatch under the Enterprise Act 2002, Ofgem conducted an investigation into the billing practices of gas and electricity suppliers. It made a number of recommendations, designed to take   effect in July 2006. There is no reason why those recommendations, or the measures taken to implement them, should materially change the number of customers using pre-payment meters. Indeed, there are 3.6 million electricity and 2.1 million gas pre-payment meter customers.

Edward Leigh: As the Minister has made clear, more than   5 million people pay for their gas or electricity with pre-payment meters, despite their being some of the poorest people in the community. In March, the Public Accounts Committee found that on average they were paying a premium to the companies of £60 a year. That is unacceptable. What actions have the Government taken since our report was published to rectify the situation and how much has the premium reduced since that time?

Malcolm Wicks: This is a matter that concerns me but it is not an easy one. The question is whether those choices should be allowed to the customer; I think they should. There are difficulties with pre-payment meters such as the extra costs, which I acknowledge. I worry about that too, but the alternative might be more disconnections and there are many evils associated with that. The matter is difficult and we need to approach it in a balanced way.

David Taylor: One obvious problem with pre-payment cards, as well as disconnections, which the Minister has just mentioned, is that if the card is not charged no fuel   is   supplied. A quarter or more pre-payment users self-disconnect in that way every year and a much higher proportion of them are gas users, which reflects the lower income profile of people forced into that position. Will the Minister tell us what he intends to do to tackle that problem?

Malcolm Wicks: As I said, this is a difficult issue because if people were in different systems and there were rising numbers of disconnections, the House would properly be concerned, as some of us have been in the past. We need to enable more customers to be given the   information to make proper choices, including the choice of switching back to the type of payment methods that many of us enjoy. In that sense, the launch of the industry home heat helpline on Monday is important, as it means that a customer, or someone concerned about their welfare, can phone up for advice on those issues.

Michael Weir: When asked about fuel poverty, Ministers often make the point that consumers should consider switching suppliers, but that   is difficult for people on pre-payment meters, which must be one of the few examples where people are penalised by paying cash in advance. Will the Minister look again at the matter to see whether there is any way in which the electricity and gas companies can be forced to give a better deal to those who have to pay through pre-payment meters? Most people do so because they have no alternative but to use such meters.

Malcolm Wicks: There is some switching between suppliers for people on pre-payment meters, but I   acknowledge that that occurs at a lower rate than for other customers. Will I look at the matter again? Yes I   will, because it is a serious concern. We want people on low incomes to be able to enjoy the kind of facilities that we all enjoy. It is true that in this case the poor pay more due to the charging structure. I will look at it again.

Brian Jenkins: That is the point. For a long time my hon. Friend was missing the point of the question. He talked about the market, but not about discrimination by companies against people who opt for pre-payment meters. On several occasions, Members on the Front Bench have defended the marketplace, and the openness of the marketplace, while Opposition Front Benchers and the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), have called for more Government intervention and control. On what date did we switch places?

Malcolm Wicks: It's a funny old week, isn't it?
	Clearly, pre-payment meters involve capital expenditure. If there was no price differential, other customers, including many low-income people and many pensioners, would have   to subsidise those on pre-payment meters. These are difficult issues. I am not relaxed about the fact that so many low-income families have different payment methods from the mainstream of society. I repeat that there is no easy solution, but I have told the hon. Member for Angus (Mr.   Weir) that I will reconsider the issue.

Theresa Villiers: Would the Minister be prepared to consider looking again at the regulation of the energy market to encourage the installation of smarter, more high-tech meters across the board? The advantage is that the consequences of consumers' energy choices would be   much more visible to them. With that visibility, we could encourage and enhance energy efficiency among consumers because they would instantly see the energy consequences of the appliances that they choose to use in the home.

Malcolm Wicks: The short answer is yes. I am very interested in the concept of smart metering, particularly if it could tell householders how much CO 2 their dwellings were emitting and, with micro-generation in the   dwelling, they could see the savings that they were making. I understand that there has been a roll-out of smart metering in Italy, so the European experience can be considered. We are discussing that option with Ofgem. The investment required would be expensive, but to repeat my short answer, yes, it is worth considering that option.

Flexible Working

James McGovern: What measures he is taking to promote flexible working for those with caring and family responsibilities.

Meg Munn: Many employers recognise the benefits of flexible working and almost a quarter of employees have some form of flexible working arrangement. The Government encourage flexible working by providing detailed guidance, promoting the benefits and sharing best practice. The right to request flexible working, which was introduced in April 2003, has proven a success with employers and employees. The Work and Families Bill proposes extending the scope of the existing law to include the carers of adults.

James McGovern: I welcome that response from my hon. Friend. I also welcome the Government's efforts on the part of families with caring responsibilities and the recent announcement on paternity leave. However, does she share my concern that, for a father to qualify for additional paternity leave, the mother must give up some of her existing right to take 12 months' maternity leave? Would it not be fairer and, indeed, simpler to give the father the paternity leave as a matter of right?

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for welcoming our policies. The Government have looked carefully at the situation and consulted on the proposals. We believe that it is appropriate for one parent to care for the child, not for two—we must be mindful of cost, of course—and that such families can make the decision based on their own circumstances about whether they prefer the mother or the father to care for the child after the first six months.

John Bercow: Labour market flexibility for employees as well as employers is clearly vital to the health of our economy. However, given that more than 90 per cent. of companies employ fewer than 10 people and that they account for more than 50 per cent. of the private sector work force and generate two fifths of our national output, will the hon. Lady say something about what the Government intend to do to incentivise such small and medium-sized companies to deliver flexible working arrangements, given that they often want to do the right thing, but find it financially and logistically more difficult than their larger counterparts to do so?

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and important point, but many small businesses are some of the best at reacting flexibly because they must do so to keep their staff and to work around such needs. However, the Government are aware that we can do more to help business, which is why we propose to ensure that employees give two months' notice of returning from maternity leave. Proposals are in place for proper consultation on whether someone wants to work flexibly if they have a child under the age of six, a disabled child or caring responsibilities, so that the needs of both the employer and the employee can be considered properly.

UK Manufacturing

Ian Austin: What steps   the Government are taking to ensure that UK   manufacturing has the skills needed to remain competitive.

Barry Gardiner: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Education and Skills announced on 31 October that four UK industries are to get national skills academies. This includes a manufacturing skills academy, which will create a single focus for the delivery of globally competitive engineering and manufacturing skills to help UK manufacturers across the country to compete and prosper in global markets.

Ian Austin: Nowhere is manufacturing more important than in the black country, where a third of jobs still depend on the sector. Will my hon. Friend consider what more can be done to encourage young people to acquire the skills needed to pursue careers in industry, manufacturing, research science and design? Will he and his colleagues come to Dudley and visit Boss Design and Thomas Dudley, which are two world-beating local companies that show that with innovation, investment, new design technology and products, Britain still has a future in manufacturing?

Barry Gardiner: I thank my hon. Friend for the invitation to visit Thomas Dudley. I remember that he referred to it in his maiden speech as one of the local companies in his area that was investing in new technology, developing new products and opening new   markets. The key point is that if we are to create such products and jobs, we need the skills to feed into those industries to develop innovation in line with our research and development perspective. I recall that my hon. Friend made boosting skills in his schools, work forces and trade unions his No. 1 priority as a Member of Parliament, and I am sure that he will deliver on that pledge to his constituency.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister for Women and Equality was asked—

Women High-flyers

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: What assessment she has made of the reasons for the   under-representation of women in high-earning, board-level jobs.

Tessa Jowell: Women are seriously under-represented as executive and non-executive members of FTSE boards. There has been a small increase in the proportion of such women over the past five years, and the next FTSE report on that will be published later this month. Given that 30 per cent. of managers are women, the reasons behind that under-representation are almost entirely due to the factors that comprise the glass ceiling, which set a challenge both to business itself and the Government.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. While we obviously need to encourage more women to apply for such posts, does she agree that it is men who at present have the power to alter the position of women in the workplace? Does she think that we should be targeting our work at them?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Firms that have taken purposeful steps to increase the proportion of women working at senior levels and on the board have seen an improvement in the standard of   their corporate governance. She is right that the message must be, "If you recruit more women, your business is likely to become more successful."

Equal Opportunities (Civil Service)

David Davies: What measures she is taking to monitor equality in employment opportunities in Government Departments.

Meg Munn: I welcome the publication this week of "Delivering a Diverse Civil Service", which will accelerate progress towards a more inclusive civil service. My Department measures the progress of women reaching the senior civil service through the gender equality public service agreement.

David Davies: Is the Minister aware that each year Government Departments squander an absolute fortune on all sorts of politically correct equality schemes? Let me cite two random examples: the NHS is spending more than £1 million a year on an equality unit, while in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 10 people who could be sorting out the agricultural crisis are manning a diversity unit. Does not the Minister think that she would do better—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but his lead-in is just a bit too long—he needs to be a bit sharper with his question. I think that the Minister has got the message.

Meg Munn: We have the message clearly that the hon.   Gentleman does not support equality. We know that in the past he has attacked the ethnic business support programme and the minority ethnic women network. It is a pity because only this week the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), said:
	"We are strongly in favour of measures to ensure that people from diverse backgrounds are recruited into the public services and have equal access."
	Let us see some more of it on the Opposition Benches.

Judy Mallaber: Contrary to the reactionary attitude of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), will my hon. Friend tell me what action her Department is taking to ensure that it is in the lead on this matter? Is she encouraging fathers within her Department to take up their responsibility for caring within their own families, rather than just leaving it to their wives?

Meg Munn: We have just been talking about the Work and Families Bill. Obviously the civil service, and the Department of Trade and Industry in particular, have an interest in ensuring that a great deal is done to support all parents, whether mothers or fathers, to take leave to look after their children. The civil service is   doing particularly well in certain respects, although we can always do better. For example, of 550,000 employees, 44,000 come from black and ethnic minorities, which is considerably better than the figure recorded in many other sectors.

Mark Pritchard: May I ask the Minister to reflect on what, unfortunately, I think were unhelpful and partisan remarks vis-à-vis equality? I   think that all Members across the House believe in   equality, but many of us have concerns when the Government begin to undermine equal rights by introducing special rights. That causes division.

Meg Munn: I have already highlighted the division that is apparent on the Conservative Benches rather than on the Government Benches—27 per cent. of Labour Members are women. If action by the Conservative party came anywhere near to achieving that figure, that would be very good.

Vera Baird: Of course the purpose of monitoring is to drive change. I am concerned that public authorities are not necessarily moving very quickly. I was appalled to find that my police force in Cleveland was next to the bottom of all forces in the recruitment of women officers. If we are to deal satisfactorily with real causes of concern such as domestic violence and sexual offences, it is imperative that we have high numbers of women police officers. I   shall chase Cleveland police now, make no mistake about it. What steps will my hon. Friend take to ensure that public authorities move into a higher gear on recruiting women?

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that question. We need to do a great deal more in the public sector. To that end, the Equality Bill will introduce a public sector duty to ensure that all public sector authorities perform equally for both genders in terms of employment and the services that they deliver.

Sandra Gidley: The Minister will be as disappointed as I am that the 1998 targets set by the Government were not met for senior civil servants. Does she agree that it would be useful to encourage women to enter the fast-track civil service scheme? Does she share my disappointment that the percentage of women entering that scheme has dropped by 10 per cent. over the past three years? What measures will she introduce to redress that balance?

Meg Munn: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady has said about the importance of getting women into the fast-track civil service stream. The public sector gender duty should ensure that greater efforts are made to increase their number.

Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that Government Departments need to make the best use of all available talents and that the services of Government Departments will be much improved if they make use of the diversity of the population? Is my hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that the senior civil service does not represent women adequately? What steps will she take about that?

Meg Munn: My hon. Friend makes an important point in that public services best serve the population when they reflect that population. We are continuing to set challenging targets, which we strive to meet. Our civil servants are also committed to doing that. Along with the public sector duty, those targets should help us to make better progress.

Eleanor Laing: May I   assure the House that the Opposition believe in equality of opportunity, even for people from Wales? Does the Minister believe everything that she said about   equality of opportunity in the public sector? Government Departments are the agent of the taxpayer, so will she go further and require companies that are awarded contracts by Departments to take equality of opportunity into consideration?

Meg Munn: The hon. Lady raises an interesting issue. The Women and Work Commission, which is looking at the gender pay gap, has done some interesting work on procurement and will produce a report in January, which, I hope, will include recommendations to develop those proposals.

Politics

Barbara Keeley: What steps the Government are taking to encourage young women and girls to participate in politics.

Meg Munn: Citizenship is taught in all schools as part of the national curriculum, and it includes the electoral system and the importance of voting. The women and equality unit has produced a special resource pack for teachers and young people that includes ideas on how to cover women's equality issues in citizenship classes.

Barbara Keeley: Last week, I was visited in Parliament by a young woman from Wigan called Michaela who is a member of the Youth Parliament and is very interested in politics and political life. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to increase women's representation in politics at different levels, so that if that young woman decides to graduate from the Youth Parliament to the House of Commons the gender balance is rather different?

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As the first woman MP for Worsley she is an excellent role model for her young constituent. The Youth Parliament could certainly teach us a thing or two about the ratio of male to female Members, because it is 49:51. Much of this is a matter for political parties, but the Labour Government passed the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 to allow political parties to use positive measures to encourage more women to stand for election.—[Interruption.] I can understand why Opposition Members are shouting at me—they do not want to face up to their failure.

Business of the House

Chris Grayling: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Geoff Hoon: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 7 November—Second Reading of the Council Tax (New Valuation Lists for England) Bill.
	Tuesday 8 November—Consideration in Committee of the Electoral Administration Bill.
	Wednesday 9 November—Report stage of the Terrorism Bill.
	Thursday 10 November—Third Reading of the Terrorism Bill.
	Friday 11 November—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 14 November—Remaining stages of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill.
	Tuesday 15 November—Opposition Day [9th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Wednesday 16 November—Remaining stages of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill.
	Thursday 17 November—A debate on defence in the UK on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 18 November—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the rest of November will be:
	Thursday 10 November—A debate on maximising women's skills in the UK economy.
	Thursday 17 November—A debate on the report from the Home Affairs Committee on the rehabilitation of prisoners.
	Thursday 24 November—a debate on the report from the Transport Committee on "Road Pricing: The Next Steps."

Chris Grayling: Will the Leader of the House update Members on the Terrorism Bill? He will be aware that yesterday, after the Government's majority was reduced to one on the issue of indirect incitement, the Home Secretary asked for a delay in the vote on the 90-day detention plan. When will that vote take place, and does he expect any further changes to the programming of the Terrorism Bill before next week?
	Last week, the Leader of the House failed to answer my question about why the Government have not yet followed the recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life to create an adviser on ministerial interests. Sir Alistair Graham has been highly critical of the Government on the subject, so when will the Leader of the House introduce proposals to that effect?
	Yesterday, many thousands of people came in the rain to lobby the House on trade, justice and poverty issues, and many expressed concern that those issues would not be made a priority at the World Trade Organisation talks in Hong Kong in December. Given all that the Government have said in the past few months about development issues, may we have a statement from the Prime Minister before the Hong Kong talks so that he can brief the House about how Britain intends to push the agenda forward? May we also have a debate in Government time so that Members again have the opportunity to make their views heard on this vital issue?
	May we also have a debate on the sub judice rules and the Procedure Committee's report on those rules? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the issues are sensitive. They have been raised a number of times in the House in the past few weeks by right hon. and hon. Members and they need to be resolved. Without resolution, they are constraining many of the activities of some of our Committees.
	When will the House see a copy of the proposed legislation on terrorists on the run in Northern Ireland? I understand that the Government have already shown those proposals to Sinn Fein. Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that Members who have not taken up their seats should see proposed legislation before those who have?
	We are now into November and the Government have still provided no further information about either the date of the pre-Budget report or the proposed dates for the parliamentary year. Neither of those are sensitive issues, so why the delay?

Geoff Hoon: Given the detailed debates that took place yesterday on the Terrorism Bill and which will again take place later when we reach the main business, I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that there is not enough opportunity to discuss these matters. I have already mentioned that there will be two further days of debate next week, so I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will continue his determined efforts to ensure that we have an effective measure for dealing with the terrorist threat in the United Kingdom, one that, incidentally, commands the   very strong support of most people in this country.
	We have a ministerial code—[Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members are scoffing, because I was about to make the point that that code has been applied by successive Prime Ministers, the majority of whom have been Conservative ones, and it is thus important to emphasise that this is a matter for the Prime Minister—a matter that he takes extraordinarily seriously.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issues of trade, justice and poverty. I saw the long lines of people who came to Westminster yesterday to lobby. This is an important issue for people throughout the country, and I am delighted that the Government have responded in the way that they have, by leading the way around the world in ensuring that these matters are taken seriously; and in our meetings of the G8, the EU and other international bodies we are the leaders in putting these issues firmly, squarely and fairly before the international community.
	The important issue of sub judice will obviously be subject to further consideration. We have had a report, but I understood from the Chairman of the Procedure Committee that it was contemplating looking at the matter again, so obviously it is important that we continue to ensure, as I have said to the House before, that we do not make comments or statements that can affect court proceedings, subject of course to the importance of right hon. and hon. Members being able to raise these matters.
	The Bill dealing with so-called on-the-runs will be published shortly, as will the parliamentary calendar and the date of the pre-Budget report.
	May I just raise one matter with the hon. Gentleman? I have seen that he has been dubbed in some newspapers as the jackal. As someone who in the past has been the victim of the sketch writers, may I sympathise with the   hon. Gentleman? I say that because I took the trouble to look up the definition of a jackal, and it was described as a medium-sized, opportunistic scavenger with dog-like features and large ears. I offer my sympathies to the hon. Gentleman about that rather unkind and totally unfair comparison.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend will be aware that unemployment in the north-west of England has come down by 48 per cent. and youth unemployment has been virtually removed since 1997. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this important success story, because we do not want any slippage back to the bad old days under the previous Administration when unemployment in my constituency used to be in double-figure percentages?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, but we have had a debate—it was called the general election campaign. As I travelled up and down the country, I was constantly reminded, even in Conservative-held seats, that the people of this country want a stable economy, full employment and the kind of training and educational opportunities that were not available before 1997. We do not need a debate to remind the country of those achievements, because people voted for them at the general election.

David Heath: The Leader of the House must hope that next week will be slightly better than this week as far as the Government are concerned.
	I listened carefully to the Leader of the House's remarks about the ministerial code of conduct. Lord Nolan, who knows a thing or two about it, said this in the Yorkshire Post:
	"Blair should insist on ministers obeying the rules. I think that if anyone breaks the rules, they should be disciplined."
	Is it not time that we had debate on the application of the ministerial code of conduct, because people do not understand the point of a code that may be broken with impunity?
	Given the Home Secretary's assurances that he is prepared, albeit in the face of almost certain defeat, to   talk to Opposition parties to try to reach a consensus, it is likely that a raft of Government amendments will be tabled on Report. Is the Leader of the House prepared to re-examine how long the Bill spends on Report, which is currently scheduled for Wednesday next week, if it is necessary to extend consideration to Thursday in order to do justice to the Government amendments?
	Is Monday a convenient day for a statement on the funding of the council tax this year, given the Local Government Association's expectation that on average council tax will rise by more than £100 to meet a £2 billion deficit, and the almost daily petitions to this House from constituents who are protesting about the iniquity of the present system?
	Finally, in a spirit of consensus, may I join the Leader of the House and the Conservative shadow Leader of the House in saying that our constituents who visited us   yesterday, whose efforts went largely unreported because of the brouhaha, deserve greater recognition for raising the important issues of trade justice and ending poverty? It is time that we debated those subjects.

Geoff Hoon: I repeat what I have said about the ministerial code—it exists to govern the conduct of Ministers during and after their period of office. It is vital that it command confidence, which is   precisely why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the matter so seriously.
	As far as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is concerned, if there are difficulties about the timing of any stage of the process, I anticipate that they will be raised through the usual channels and considered appropriately.
	On council tax funding, a Second Reading debate is taking place on Monday. I do not know why the hon.   Gentleman needs a statement on top of that, because I am sure that he is capable of raising the issue.   In the light of last year's experience, the LGA announcement is probably an opening bid. I checked last year's opening bid—the hon. Gentleman might like to do the same—which involved the same kind of comments about the need for a large increase in council tax, although interestingly that was not the final result. We are seeing a carefully calculated effort to impress the Government, but I anticipate that the final result will be very different from the LGA's opening position.
	I have nothing to add to my earlier comments about trade justice, which is important, and I am delighted that   so many people made their concerns known. The Government strongly support trade justice.

Geraldine Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that last year's referendum on regional government in the north-east demonstrated little or no public support for an additional layer of politicians? Does he also agree that the numerous quangos that operate in our regions need   to be held to account? Is he prepared to examine the possibility of hon. Members taking on that task, perhaps through grand committees of the regions?

Geoff Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend that the result of the referendum in the north-east showed that that particular proposal was not supported there. However, I do not entirely accept my hon. Friend's observations on additional tiers. As happened in Scotland and Wales, a single tier of local government has allowed for the development of national Parliaments and Assemblies in those countries. Nobody would have strongly supported the idea of an additional tier of government without obvious changes to the way in which local government was administered. It remains to be seen whether the issue is taken forward.
	The Government have never suggested that we should add a tier of regional government without considering the structures for local government, which are often confusing to our constituents, who are not sure which tier of local government is responsible for which activity. I certainly take seriously my hon. Friend's suggestion about the way in which we should supervise quangos.

Mark Lancaster: Will the Leader of the House find time to debate early-day motion 385?
	[That this House recommends that glasses and bottles should be changed to plastic in late night bars and clubs.]
	That follows the vicious attack on my constituent, Blake Golding, in January. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would support measures that help to curb antisocial behaviour.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful for that suggestion from the   hon. Gentleman.—[Interruption.] I am sure that promotion will come in due course. No Government have taken the question of antisocial behaviour more seriously than this one. We have legislated and taken action across the country to deal with the threat. I accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of further action as part of the necessary consideration of these issues that the Government undertake on a routine basis.

Brian Iddon: The disengagement plan that the Israelis implemented in Gaza has caused more problems than it has solved, and   Israel is being very provocative over its handling of   affairs in Jerusalem. Iran's provocative statements about Israel are also causing problems, and Iraq and Afghanistan are giving rise to many concerns among Members. When may we have the long-promised debate on affairs in the middle east?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes such a pessimistic view of the middle east, and particularly sorry that he regrets Israel's disengagement from Gaza. My contacts in the Palestinian community have strongly welcomed that as an important step towards a two-stage solution for the middle east. That is why we believe that this is a contribution towards the establishment of a Palestinian state. That is also the view that most of my Palestinian friends have taken.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear the Government's position in relation to the outrageous remarks by the Iranian President, and I do not believe that I need add anything to that. I know that I speak for all Members of this House in condemning those remarks and the destabilising characteristic of what the Iranian President has done.
	As for Iraq and Afghanistan, my hon. Friend may be more pessimistic than I am. I believe that we have made very significant progress, with elections taking place and a constitution being approved in both countries and   steps now under way towards providing not only a transitional Government in Iraq but a permanent one.

Nicholas Winterton: On the   sub judice rule raised by the shadow Leader of the House, the Government owe the House a debate on the   report produced by the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament. The Committee is not willing to proceed with a further inquiry until it has received the Government's response and had a debate on that report. I hope that the Leader of the House will treat that seriously.
	On a more important point, I was unfortunately unable to attend the Modernisation Committee yesterday because of a very important funeral, but I   understand that it took a decision to look into the legislative process. May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the legislative process is very much the responsibility of the Procedure Committee, which has for many decades had responsibility for those aspects of the House's activities? Will the Leader of the House agree to have a   meeting with the Procedure Committee, which is chaired impartially by a Back-Bench Member rather than by a member of the Cabinet, to ensure that there is no duplication between its work and that of the Modernisation Committee?

Geoff Hoon: I am always grateful for such spirited contributions from the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I misunderstood his recent remarks when he suggested that the Procedure Committee was considering looking afresh at the sub judice matter. I had taken that to mean that it was considering new ideas. I cannot see any purpose in holding a debate while the Procedure Committee is still engaged on that consideration. However, I am perfectly willing to see the hon. Gentleman and discuss those matters with him.
	I have heard on previous occasions the hon. Gentleman's observations on the Modernisation Committee and the inevitable overlap between its excellent work and that of the   Procedure Committee. Hon. Members have accepted that that is the inevitable consequence of modernisation. It is important that the House continue to modernise its   procedures and arrangements to ensure that the people whom we represent fully understand and appreciate the excellent work that is done here.

Joan Walley: After the earthquake in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, what scope is there for a debate during which we can consider the efforts of the United Nations, our Department for   International Development, our Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our Ministry of Defence? With winter setting in, we need to know the extent of the unmet need and whether further co-ordination is required to ensure that aid is there before winter arrives. That needs to be done urgently.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. It is important not only for the United Kingdom's relations with Pakistan, with which we work closely, but domestically, because I know from recent visits that the issue directly affects many of our constituents with a Pakistani background and close relatives in Pakistan. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government take the matter seriously. We have not only led the way in financial assistance, but we have provided assistance in kind, not least in the form of three large helicopters from the Ministry of Defence. We will continue to take the issue seriously.

Peter Robinson: The Leader of the House said earlier that legislation for the   so-called on-the-runs was due to be presented shortly. We have heard that for perhaps the past eight weeks, since the Government shared their view with a terrorist organisation but not with parliamentarians. There is growing concern in Northern Ireland about the   expectation that the Government will extend the measure to embrace almost everybody who committed a crime before 1998, without having them appear before a court. Will the Leader of the House ensure that, if the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not going to introduce the Bill in the next two weeks, he will make a statement to the House to clarify the matter?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important issue that is sensitive for many people not only in Northern Ireland but elsewhere in   this country. I emphasise that the measure is a determined contribution to achieving a peaceful resolution to the situation in Northern Ireland. There are times when extraordinarily difficult decisions have to be made. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that, as soon as the Bill is ready, it will be published in the usual way and all hon. Members will have the opportunity of seeing and discussing it.

Mike Hall: Cheshire county council, under a review that is euphemistically called "Transforming Learning Communities", proposes to close one secondary school and at least two successful, buoyant primary schools in villages in my constituency. I should like a debate on the fact that Cheshire county council has placed a gag on the head teachers and teachers in those schools for speaking up for their schools while the review continues. That is an abrogation of their democratic rights and an affront to their civil liberties. Will the Leader of the House grant me a debate on that next week?

Geoff Hoon: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate next week, but he raises an important matter. There is a process under way of ensuring that we have the right sized schools in the right places to deal with the population. I accept that that sometimes causes difficulties in local communities and that we must keep it under review. I am sure that my hon. Friend will ensure that the matter remains at the forefront of concerns in his constituency.

Eric Forth: May we have an urgent debate on the ministerial code, which is allegedly written and policed by the Prime Minister? Is not it the case that, sadly, yesterday's resignation by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was brought about by a combination of political pressure and withdrawal of support from Labour Back Benchers? How is it that everybody else can see what the Prime Minister is unable to perceive—that integrity and honesty in government and in politics are important? If the ministerial code is to mean anything, we should take it away from the Prime Minister and give it to someone who knows what decency and integrity really mean.

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has taken that approach. As I made clear, successive Prime Ministers have been responsible for supervising the ministerial code. That position has continued for several years and I am happy to endorse it, because I   know how seriously my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister takes the ministerial code.

Chris Bryant: May we have a debate as soon as possible on Iran? Does the Leader of the House accept that it is not only the Iranian President's words about Israel last week or the nuclear programme that cause concern, but Iran's grisly human rights record? In July, two young men were killed in north-east Iran merely for being gay, and 30 young people under the age of 18 are on death row. Those are only the people we know about. May we have a debate and break with convention by not holding it on the Adjournment of the House but on a resolution, so that the Government of Iran understand that not only the Government but the whole House is worried about our relations with that country?

Geoff Hoon: I emphasise again the importance that the Government attach to the disturbing situation in Iran. My hon. Friend is right to point not only to the terrible statement by the Iranian President but to a range of other issues that the Government clearly take seriously. Indeed, this morning, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out several concerns to the Cabinet about Iran. It is therefore much in our minds and we must continue to deal with it through the careful international diplomacy that has produced results. It is a clear sign of the international community's unity that France and the United States co-sponsored a resolution to ensure that there is a genuine way forward for the international community to deal with the disturbing situation in Iran.

Richard Younger-Ross: Earlier this week, Best Mate tragically died at Devon and Exeter racecourse. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs makes a statement to explain why, against the wishes of the racecourse owners and the race horse owners, it was not allowed to be buried at the racecourse?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that my distinguished predecessor, Robin Cook, would have had an answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. He had undoubtedly forgotten more about horse racing than I will ever know. I do not know the answer, but I shall try to find out.

Sharon Hodgson: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 840?
	[That this House believes that British Telecom should automatically make available its free BT Privacy Service to stop unwanted calls to all customers who previously signed up to the service at a cost of £21 a year; and is astonished that BT has no plans to alert paying customers to the fact that the service is now free if they subscribe to BT Privacy and that they say it is up to customers who subscribed in the past to request the change.]
	The motion has solid cross-party support and highlights the practice of BT, which continues to fleece its customers for a service that it provides free to brand new customers. BT stops taking the charge only if its loyal customers ask for that. May we have a debate on consumer rights?

Geoff Hoon: One thing that I do know about BT is that it has a very effective public affairs department, so I am sure that my hon. Friend's raising of this issue on the Floor of the House will already have been considered by the company. I am sure that she will achieve the desired effect by raising it in this way.

John Bercow: Given the growing scandal of unsafe removals of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe, Somalia and Sudan—to name but three countries in which returnees are at risk of imprisonment, torture, death or a grisly combination of all three—will the right hon. Gentleman provide for an early debate on that issue on the Floor of the House in Government time, so that those who wish to do so can argue that the Government ought to put in place more effective systems and to make more painstaking efforts to ensure that individuals are not returned to countries whose Governments cannot or will not guarantee their safety?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in raising these issues and I congratulate him on that. However, I differ with him to a certain extent. He is right to say that it is vital that, in each individual case, proper consideration is given to the consequences for that individual of being returned to any country. The risk   attached to the hon. Gentleman's approach is clear, however. Generalising about the situation in any   particular country could prevent that individual assessment from being made.
	When difficult cases are considered, it is important that we do not simply say that there will be no further deportations to places such as Zimbabwe, for example, because it might well be perfectly safe and proper for that particular individual to be returned there. I accept that we need to look at these examples very carefully, given the risks to the individuals involved, but if we start saying that there are countries to which we can never deport people, that will be a clear encouragement for people to come here from those countries to seek asylum. That is the balance that we have to strike, and we have to get it right.

Paul Truswell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for Transport has said today that he will not support the Leeds supertram bid, but that he would support well-argued proposals for bus schemes? Given the Government's renewed enthusiasm for buses, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in the House on the ways in which we can improve bus services across the country, including through the extension of the quality bus contracts that have worked so well in London, but are effectively denied to the rest of the country?

Geoff Hoon: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has looked at a number of these cases very carefully. I acknowledge that that will not be a great consolation to the people of Leeds, but it is important that we continue to look at the most effective, and cost-effective, ways of delivering better public transport. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the important contribution that buses can and do make to that.

George Young: What has happened to the Government's Bill on smoking, which was published last month, but which, to judge by the business statement, is not going to be seen in a public place for some time? Would it not assist the   passage of that important measure if the Government were to allow a free vote on the various options supported by the right hon. Gentleman's Cabinet colleagues?

Geoff Hoon: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no comprehensive ban on the discussion of that   Bill. There will be every opportunity for the House to consider the careful compromise that the Government have put before the country.

Stephen McCabe: May we have an early debate on the responsibilities that local authorities should observe when drawing up a contaminated land register? This is affecting several hundred of my constituents in the Bach Mill Drive area   of Billesley. Birmingham city council identified the land there as contaminated, then sold it to property developers to build houses on. My constituents now face years of litigation, at taxpayers' expense, while the value of their property goes through the floor. Surely it cannot be right that the city council can identify land that it owns as contaminated, then sit as judge and jury on the outcome. Surely that is unjust.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has made his point, but I   would not wish to be drawn into what appears to be a potential legal case that has clearly aroused very strong feelings. I shall simply express my concern on behalf of those home owners because, for most people, their home is the single most important purchase that they make and they want to be confident that their land is not contaminated. I am sure that my hon. Friend has done the people whom he represents a valuable service by raising this issue.

Michael Moore: The Leader of the House will be aware of the continuing anger from all sides about the Office of   Fair Trading's report on the supermarket code of practice, which, unbelievably, suggested that there was   nothing wrong in the relationship between farm businesses and the large supermarkets. Given the importance of this issue, will the right hon. Gentleman find Government time to debate it, so that we can expose the report for the whitewash that it was?

Geoff Hoon: It is important that we consider the importance of agriculture and the provision of food in our supermarkets. However, one of the issues that inevitably arises in relation to large supermarkets is the determination of most careful consumers in the United Kingdom to pay as little as they can for their food. That undoubtedly drives the practices of the supermarkets, which, from time to time, not only irritate farmers but produce considerable anger. However, changes are taking place in that market. Consumers are undoubtedly becoming more discerning. For example, they are taking into account the distance that food is   transported before it arrives on their plate. The fact that such considerations are being taken to heart by consumers is changing the relationship that the hon. Gentleman has described.

Siobhain McDonagh: Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate on the front-page story of today's Wimbledon Post on mis-spending by unelected bureaucrats in the NHS? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been called in to decide on the site of a new general hospital in my area. Sutton's MPs and I want it to stay at my existing local hospital, St. Helier. However, the officials are determined to move it to a wealthy suburb, where it would be inaccessible to my constituents. Even though no decision has yet been made, they are spending huge amounts of taxpayers' money on the site—including £60,000 that they   have paid, to help them to promote the site, to an organisation run by someone who, for constitutional reasons, should not be involved in political decisions such as these: the Prince of Wales. The House needs to debate whether the Prince should be backing health cuts for my poorest constituents—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady should try for an Adjournment debate on that matter.

Geoff Hoon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say to my hon. Friend that, having had to prepare for Cabinet, attend the meeting, and prepare for business questions, I had not had time to read this morning's copy of the Wimbledon Post. However, I suspect that I   no longer need to do so. I am grateful to her for raising this issue and I am sure that she will be guaranteed good   coverage in tomorrow's edition of that august publication. I am not sure that I need add anything to what she said.

David Gauke: Given the rapid move towards the amalgamation of police forces as a consequence of the O'Connor report   produced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, will the Leader of the House consider giving Government time to a debate on that report and its significant consequences for policing in this country?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of that important report on the future structure of our police authorities. I do not think that anyone doubts   that if we were devising a way of organising our police forces now, we would not start with 43 of them, distributed in their current rather random way. It is therefore right that we should consider this important question, particularly on the basis of direct advice from   those who know these matters best, namely, the police. I am sure that, in due course, there will be an opportunity to debate these issues.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that earlier today, during Trade and Industry questions, there were a great many questions on energy, particularly nuclear energy. Is it not time to start a debate on that issue and to put Members' questions into a debate so that we can get proper answers from the relevant Minister?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. There is little doubt that that debate has been started. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear at the Labour party conference that it was an issue that we in the Government and the people of this country must address, in order to provide us with adequate energy supplies long into the future. I know that the issue was also raised at Question Time today, and that   it is one to which right hon. and hon. Members will   continue to return.

Alistair Burt: Some farmers in my constituency, despite 23 months of struggle and being placed on a priority priority list, have still not received accurate maps of their farm from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, thus further delaying the ill-fated single farm payment scheme. Does the Leader of the House accept that one of the hallmarks of his Government is now the lack of belief among the public that they can deliver any major reform, from single farm payments to working tax credits? Will he institute an inquiry among his Cabinet colleagues into how many major projects are overrun, over-budget, subject to an ombudsman's inquiry, or necessitating the   employment of expensive consultants, and place the results in the Library?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman went from a perfectly sensible question about a practical problem affecting his constituents to a ramble about the rest of the Government's delivery programme. The truth is that since 1997 the Government have delivered on health, education and employment—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are making noises. The hon. Gentleman raised a perfectly proper issue and I was about to give him a helpful and constructive answer, but he turned it into a series of generalisations about the Government's programme elsewhere. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write to him on the matter.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I take the Leader of the House back to his reply a few moments ago to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) in relation to the Health Bill, when he said that the House would have adequate time to discuss the carefully considered proposition of the Cabinet. I think that I summarise him correctly. Will he therefore consider having the key clauses of the Bill   dealt with on the Floor of the House, as has happened with some other controversial legislation involving conscience, and will he bear in mind, and discuss with his right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chief Whip, the need for an unwhipped vote on these issues? The question of people who work in private clubs and children who go to private clubs needs to be addressed. Does he have an open mind?

Geoff Hoon: The Leader of the House always has an   open mind. I could not make the same point to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir   George Young) because he was not elected on a manifesto that committed both my hon. Friend and me to the careful compromise set out by the Government, but I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will have a view on why Members elected on that manifesto are not keen to support it.

Daniel Rogerson: May we have a debate on the subject of self-regulating professions? Several of my constituents have contacted me on issues relating to professions about which they feel that they have no right of appeal. I have taken advice on whether I can secure an Adjournment debate on the issue, in this place or in Westminster Hall, but have been told that as it cuts across many Departments I am unable to do so. Is the Leader of the House able to offer a debate on the issue of self-regulating professions?

Geoff Hoon: I would regard an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall as an excellent vehicle. One of the characteristics of Westminster Hall has been that it has dealt with issues that cut across several Departments. I   encourage the hon. Gentleman to pursue that avenue, and if he has any difficulties I would be willing to examine them.

Anthony D Wright: On Saturday, we will remember that it is the 400th anniversary of the gunpowder plot. Many of my constituents will also remember that within the past 12 months we introduced legislation to curb the misuse of fireworks. My postbag is already building up in relation to the abuse of fireworks, so the legislation is   clearly not having an effect. Will the Leader of the   House give a commitment that he will bring the legislation back to the Floor of the House after 5 November for consideration of what we can do to make sure that we do not suffer the same problems next 5 November?

Andrew MacKinlay: Same punishment as Guy Fawkes. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is supposed to be on my side.
	On the important issue of fireworks, which I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) for raising, the Government have taken action. Three new penalty notices and three new offences have been created to deal with the abuse of selling fireworks outside the normal and reasonable period for celebrating what will this year be the 400th anniversary of an important event in the nation's life. We do not want to prevent those celebrations in any way. On the other hand, it is important that they are   confined closely to the period around 5 November. I have not received the same number of complaints on the matter this year as in recent years, which, I believe, is because the legislation is having an impact. It is important, as he says, that we continue to publicise that legislation, to make sure that it continues to have the impact required.

Tim Loughton: I have raised with the Leader of the House on several occasions the subject of the elusive draft Mental Health Bill. It remains as elusive as ever, yet last week The   Guardian produced a leaked report of the findings of the Government's code of practice working party, which completely dished large parts of that Bill. Will he confirm whether the rumours that the whole Bill might have been ditched are true, and that the Government have realised that they do not want to open up another front in the onslaught on civil liberties that the Bill represented? If not, will we see the Bill this side of Christmas? In any case, will he at last give the House an opportunity to debate the subject of mental health, which has not once been debated in Government time since 1997?

Geoff Hoon: As I have said to the hon. Gentleman previously, mental health is an important issue. I accept that the terrible consequences of such problems, for many more people than perhaps is understood, are not   always recognised. The Mental Health Bill is in the Government's legislative programme and will be brought forward, but as with all parts of that programme, the appropriate timing is a matter for the business managers.

Denis MacShane: May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on housing in south Yorkshire, in the light of a written reply from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to me this week showing that over the past five years, for the giant conurbations of Rotherham, Sheffield, Barnsley and Doncaster, on average just 3,189 new dwellings have been built a year for the 1.5 million people who live there? That is the lowest rate of house build in south Yorkshire since the   stone age. We have the land and the building firms, so can we have a debate to consider how planning committees can move forward and land use rules be changed? While the concrete mixers are ready for the south of England, we would like to see in the north of England a much more supply-side orientated policy from the Government to encourage new homes and new houses.

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. My constituency is not that far away from the area that he describes and there has been a great deal of new building there, which has improved the housing stock. It is not only a question of new houses for currently homeless people; what most people want is to   be able to move out of some of the older properties into new and better quality houses. I therefore support his call to improve planning processes to allow that to happen.

Pete Wishart: When we have the debate on returning asylum seekers, may we have a good and proper look at the use of dawn raids by the immigration service? There is almost universal revulsion and embarrassment in Scotland about the use of that practice, especially with our backdrop of a falling population. Does the Leader of the House agree that because of our different immigration requirements, and because of our clearly different political values on the matter, it is time to devolve immigration to the Scottish Parliament?

Geoff Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, this is an important, sensitive and difficult issue right across the country. It cannot necessarily be dealt with on a devolved basis because it affects the whole United Kingdom. It is important, as the Government have repeatedly made clear, that we balance an appropriately sympathetic and understanding position in relation to those who are genuinely seeking asylum, as against those who are simply coming here as economic migrants. I am sure that if I came to his constituency, his constituents would take exactly that view.

Paul Flynn: The vote on the smoking ban is really a vote on whether we have a partial or total ban—whether we vote for saving thousands of lives and avoiding thousands of cases of cancer, or stick to the holy writ of the manifesto. I remind the Leader of the House that not all Labour Members stood on the same manifesto, because there were different manifestos in Scotland and Wales. May we have a debate on manifestos?

Geoff Hoon: I am sure that my hon. Friend has not done this directly to me in the past, but I anticipate that he will have told Labour Front Benchers that they must stick to the manifesto. The Labour party has had great debates on those sorts of questions, but the House is not the place to debate them. I am sure that they will be debated elsewhere.

Tony Baldry: Last year, as a one-off, the Government pumped £1 billion into local government finance because, understandably, they did not want council tax bills to go through the roof before the general election. That will not happen again this year, so it is not surprising that the Local Government Association expects council tax bills to go up by £100.
	Later this month or early in December, we shall have   the annual ritual of the local government finance   settlement. As the settlement is always drafted in Schleswig-Holstein-style obscurity, it is almost impossible for Members to ask questions at the time. Will the Leader of the House undertake to provide a debate on this year's settlement in Government time before the House rises for the Christmas recess, so that we can all come and tell him that he is wrong about the council tax increases that will be necessary in the coming year because of the Government's failure to give financial support to local government?

Geoff Hoon: I recall the hon. Gentleman's giving the then Opposition lectures on the need to balance budgets and spend money wisely and effectively. Such observations should apply equally to local government. We must all exercise our responsibilities for financial management in a sensible way.
	I regard the LGA's bid as part of its negotiating tactic. We see it every year, and it is not surprising that it has appeared this year. No doubt it is the first sign of winter, or something. These matters will be resolved, and they will be resolved in the usual way.

Points of Order

Michael Penning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday we witnessed a fantastic demonstration of democracy in Parliament when we were lobbied by the Trade Justice Movement in a wonderfully organised way. Sadly, however, a postcode lottery determined who was completely soaked in the rain outside, because people travelled here from different parts of the country. My constituents, who had travelled no further than 50 miles or so, spent four hours outside and were soaked to the skin. Meanwhile, Westminster Hall was nowhere near full. I   wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, could look into   how we organise delegations to Parliament in the 21st century, so that we can treat our constituents in a much better fashion.

Mr. Speaker: I will look into the point that the hon.   Gentleman has raised, but my understanding is that as   many members of the public were admitted to the precincts as could safely be accommodated—and the organisers of the lobby were well aware in advance that they were bringing more people to Westminster than could be admitted to the building. The organisers of such lobbies have to take some responsibility for the consequences of their arrangements.

John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will know, the expenses of all Members have been published in the past few weeks, causing great excitement to all and sundry. You will also know that the costs of the office of the Leader of the Opposition, which are paid in Short money, are in the public domain. I am told by the House of Commons Library, however, that no equivalent information about the Prime Minister's office is available. I understand that questions have been tabled about the issue, but to no avail. Can you advise me, Mr.   Speaker, on how I might be able to establish the costs of the Prime Minister's private office, in an entirely proper way, so that we can compare them with our own costs and with those of the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: I have received some advice myself. I   understand that the Prime Minister's office is not a matter for the House of Commons.

Mark Pritchard: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), Mr. Speaker. May I   draw your attention to a conversation that took place in Westminster Hall yesterday? I had to attend a meeting of the Environmental Audit Committee, which, as you know, is doing fine work on climate change renewables and nuclear power. I was told that a green slip could not be taken to Portcullis House, and that I could be given one only if I was in the main building. Is not Portcullis House still part of the parliamentary estate?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. I will look into it and reply to him.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Terrorism Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day ]

(Clauses 21, 22, 5 to 20, schedule 1, clauses 25 to 27, schedule 2, clauses 28 to 36, schedule 3, clauses 37 and 38, new clauses, new schedules, remaining proceedings)
	Considered in Committee [Progress, 2 November].
	[Sir Michael Lord in the Chair]

Clause 21
	 — 
	Grounds of Proscription

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: As the Minister will know, an amendment to clause 21 was tabled but not selected. It dealt with the question of what constitutes unlawful glorification, which seems to depend on what glorification turns out to mean in the rest of the Bill. We believe that there are good grounds for proscribing an organisation that glorifies terrorist acts, because that is different from criminalising such an organisation, but I should like to understand better the nature of unlawful glorification and its relation to the   meaning of glorification in clause 1. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to an amendment that had not been selected, but we have an opportunity to discuss the clause. I think he agrees with the Government that proscription is an important weapon in the fight against terrorism. He mentioned the word "glorification": there was some discussion about that yesterday, and the Committee settled its opinion.
	Proscription is an important weapon in the fight against terrorism, but more would be required than for an individual member of an organisation to make glorifying statements. The organisation itself would have to be aligned with those opinions. It should also be   stressed that glorification of terrorism applies only when an audience can reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is conduct that should be   emulated in existing circumstances. Glorification of terrorism in itself is not sufficient ground for proscription.

William Cash: When deciding whether particular organisations should be proscribed, might we not encounter a difficulty? A mosque, for instance, consists of a body of people—the jurists on the one hand and the imam on the other—who may say certain things. I do not pretend to know the answer to the problem, but, as I tried to explain yesterday, we could find ourselves on extremely dangerous territory because of aspects of the universalism of the religion in   question, and the interaction between religion and   politics—which, in the context of the Koran, are inseparable.

Paul Goggins: Even communities such as the Muslim community have organisations and structures, although overall the Muslim religion is not as highly structured as   some other religions. Each mosque has its own management committee; nothing is left to one individual. The clause relates to organisations, and it would be for Ministers to consider and make recommendations in respect of any specific organisation once all the evidence had been carefully considered.
	In conclusion, I again pray in aid Lord Carlile, who has been quoted many times during our deliberations. He made the following recommendation:
	"Extending the list to include the organisations envisaged in the clause is a proportional limitation on the freedom of association in relation to the greater public good."
	So he sees clause 21 as an appropriate measure and, accordingly, I support it strongly.

Tony Wright: I support very strongly what the Government are trying to do in   general through this Bill, but we are right to ask for   a certain amount of caution at various points, and this is   probably one of them. During our proceedings, the so-called Mandela test has been raised in a number of   ways. Of course, the fact is that these provisions apply not only to this country but internationally—to   organisations and activities elsewhere. There is a fundamental difference between societies that have democratic, liberal political systems and those that do not, and between the appropriate political responses. We should never forget that terrorism is always an act of mass murder, but the context in which it operates is profoundly different when there are no opportunities for   normal means of political opposition. So giving some kind of credence—or, indeed, support—to organisations operating in such a context is clearly different from giving it to the organisations that we are primarily dealing with today.
	I suspect that in the past all of us have flirted with supporting organisations that would come a cropper under this Bill. Many of my generation had a picture of Che Guevara on their walls, and not many of us regarded Nelson Mandela as anything other than a great icon. That suggests that we should proceed with great care in making sure that we get this Bill right. Of course, in a sense these provisions apply to past activities, not just current ones. In Westminster Hall, there is a splendid exhibition about Guy Fawkes, and we can buy commemorative mugs showing pictures of the Guy Fawkes conspirators. In fact, I just met someone dressed as Guy Fawkes walking into Portcullis House, and I am sure that there are Guy Fawkes commemoration societies and various other such bodies.
	We do not want to be silly about this, but the fact is that we tend to regard things that happened a long time ago rather differently from those happening currently. However, these provisions are designed deliberately to capture past associations, too, and all that I am doing is asking the Government please to proceed with some care and caution.

Peter Robinson: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: I want to press the Minister to give us a little more detail on exactly how this provision will be applied. I agree with what has just been said, in that the wording is very broad and could cause difficulties. The Minister gave no specific examples of what he thought might be unlawful conduct leading to an organisation's being proscribed. I   shall give a more recent—and still sometimes sensitive—example than the perfectly reasonable ones given a moment ago.
	As we all know, in Ireland there are plenty of gatherings at which people will start singing republican songs that glorify very violent conduct, and I believe that there are some loyalist equivalents, as well. The situation in Ireland is very much improved, but there are still extremists there. The current end to violence, which we all hope will last, can prove somewhat fragile when tensions arise in Ulster, and I wonder whether the past glorification of terrorism as contained in the lyrics of many Irish republican songs could be regarded as unlawful conduct.

Peter Robinson: rose—

Kenneth Clarke: The Bill seems not to require that, to be caught by this provision, the person or organisation singing the republican songs must be intending to provoke further violent conduct; it is simply a question of whether it might reasonably be expected that someone will take from such songs a general encouragement to emulate such conduct in current circumstances. I can think of situations where that might be so—if, for example, an event were taking place in the Province at a very sensitive time. I give this example so that the Minister can offer some insight into how such a situation might be affected by this clause.
	The phrase
	"glorification . . . of acts of terrorism"
	is vague and is such an innovation that it will be susceptible to very wide interpretation at various future points. I am not sure why it has been included. I am entirely content that organisations be proscribed that in other ways are plainly trying to encourage violent activities. Given yesterday's very narrow majority, may we have an assurance that the Government will consider before Report whether this vague term—the "glorification" of such conduct, be it in the past, present or future—might not more sensibly be removed from the Bill altogether?

Peter Robinson: In attempting to intervene earlier, I wanted to make a point similar to that made by   the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I can foresee circumstances in which the police might have to scoop up half the population of Northern Ireland. Some, for example, glorify the 1916 rebellion, and parades are regularly held to glorify those who were arrested in the post office and later executed. A large section of the community glorifies the actions of 1912 and the defiance of the Ulster volunteers; indeed, even today there are bands named after the Ulster volunteers. All such forms of glorification would   clearly be caught by the net of this Bill. The only   criterion that the Government have offered is the   Director of Public Prosecutions' sensible use of the legislation. If I may mix my fishing metaphors, the only way for such people not to be caught by this legislative net is for the DPP to let them off the hook. That is hardly satisfactory. How do the Government view those major commemorative occasions in Northern Ireland and the actions that are likely to flow from them?

William Cash: I very much endorse the views expressed by   my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for   Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). The glorification provision, to which I have tabled a number of amendments, takes us into extremely dangerous territory. It will lead to extremely unproductive discussion and invite the problems that I mentioned earlier in an intervention on the Minister.
	I think that I heard the Home Secretary suggest this morning on the "Today" programme—he will correct me if I am wrong—that the glorification provision was an important but not essential part of the Bill. Given the   circumstances and the narrow majority for this provision of just one vote, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe referred, I   hope that I can infer from the Home Secretary's comments that the Government are not going to insist on it. If it proceeds to the House of Lords, it will get into increasingly deep trouble. I sat through the whole of yesterday's debate and I cannot remember a single Member—apart from Government Front Benchers—saying a single word in favour of including the glorification provision in the Bill.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was right to say that we must deal with other aspects of incitement to terrorism and the proscription of terrorist organisations. However, it is simply absurd to introduce the notion of glorification to deal with the mischief that terrorism presents.
	With respect to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), I must point out that not only past associations are important in this respect. Present associations must also be taken into account. Yesterday, I spoke about the Catholic martyrs of the 16th century, to whom Catholic services still constantly refer. Beatification is still an issue, as is the fate of people such as St. Edmund Campion and others. For instance, in the persecutions of the late 16th century, 30 people who attended my old school were martyred. They were hung, drawn and quartered, and services are held at regular intervals to glorify them.
	Martyrdom, whether religious or political, is not confined to the past. It happens in the present, and will continue to happen in the future. People will continue to act in ways contrary to the circumstances of the present, and the law must deal with that. Inserting into the Bill a   notion of glorification, unlawful or otherwise, is extremely dangerous, as it will encourage much uncertainty and unnecessary hostility.

Richard Shepherd: I   listened respectfully to the Minister, but I agree with everything that has been said by other hon. Members about the clause.
	Clause 21 is very anti-history—so much so that it seems that Parliament is trying to strike a blow against the past. Most of the countries that we hold in high esteem have a myth about their creation and celebrate, for instance, a glorious revolution or the overthrow of a colonial power. Their histories are often held up as examples of how direct and positive action can bring about change for the better.
	Holding up as such an example, even the progress to liberal democracy, if that involved acts covered by the terms of the Bill, would be deemed fundamentally unlawful. However, that is often the truth behind many modern societies.
	We reason by cases, and the United States is worth considering in that connection. President Bush, like all his predecessors, is almost obliged to esteem the actions of those who rose against Britain's sovereignty in America's internal affairs. Another example is Italy's revolt against the Austrians. Garibaldi sought the emancipation, in one sense, of the south of Italy, and was treated as a national hero when he arrived here: all of London turned out to celebrate the courageous acts of one of the great 19th century figures.
	I know that the Home Secretary will say that all that happened a long time ago. In the historical analysis that he presented on Second Reading, he said that he considered progress to be ineluctable. We know that it is not; what we think of as progress can turn out to be regress, and it is possible that that is what is happening in certain central Asian states today.
	The notion of glorification as presented in the Bill goes against the principles of liberal democracy that the   Home Secretary is endeavouring to protect. In his   endeavours, he contradicts something that is profoundly important to our society.

Gordon Prentice: Clause 21 explains that the notion of a glorifying statement includes "a communication without words". Would a person therefore be caught for wearing the wrong lapel badge? Could someone end up in jail for wearing the wrong T-shirt?

Rob Marris: I   have reservations about the wording of clause 21, and much sympathy with what has been said already in that connection. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure me later that I have misread the clause, but my interpretation is that, for example, a UK citizen singing rebel songs with the Clancy Brothers in a New York bar could be arrested on returning to this country.
	Furthermore, my reading of the clause suggests that a   record company distributing records by groups such as the Clancy Brothers could become a proscribed organisation. In the same way, the distributors of Neil   Jordan's film "Michael Collins", which came out five or six years ago and which I suspect most hon.   Members will have seen, could become a proscribed organisation in the UK. That is because it could be reasonably expected that some people living in Ireland's 32 counties might start emulating the activities with which Michael Collins was associated in the period   between 1919 and 1921. Those activities included blowing up British forces and, on occasion and by accident, civilians.
	Under the terms of clause 21, could film distributors also become proscribed organisations?

Dominic Grieve: I am very grateful to all those who have participated in this short debate, which has highlighted some of my anxieties about the clause. My party accepts that a problem exists in connection with organisations in this country that regularly glorify acts of terrorism currently taking place around the world, and that that problem must be addressed. As so often, however, there is a difficulty with how the clause is worded.
	In its present form, clause 21 is a catch-all provision. It could be used to proscribe any organisation that glorifies any past act of terrorism. When I was at university, many left-wing organisations gloried in all sorts of activities that took place in the past. An example of that might be the peasants revolt, whose acts of terrorism were especially—and regrettably—targeted against lawyers.
	If a group is founded that calls itself the John Bull society, for instance, or the Wat Tyler club, its aim might   be to promote radical political change. Such organisations might well draw inspiration from figures from the past who committed acts of violence, but the result is that they would be liable to be caught by clause 21. The Minister will no doubt fall back on the old mantra and say, "It's all right, the DPP will know how to distinguish between various groups," but that will not be good enough.
	If the Government want to go down this road, they must produce a coherent argument that makes it clear what they are aiming at. They must narrow the definition sufficiently to allow the Committee as a whole to agree about the groups that would be caught. Otherwise, the Bill will create an absurdity, with endless challenges when attempts are made to proscribe organisations.
	Without that narrower definition, there will be allegations of unfairness. Other organisations will be   brought into the argument, and it will be contended that all sorts of bodies celebrate past violence. The Government should focus attention on the clause's use of the expression
	"whether in the past, in the future or generally".
	I accept that the matter is not an easy one but, if it turns out to be impossible to produce coherent grounds for proscription, that would be a good reason for saying that we should not have the clause at all.
	I do not intend to force a vote at the end of this debate, as I support the Government's underlying intention with the clause. I believe that Ministers will consider the other, linked issues relating to glorification between now and next Wednesday, when the Bill returns on Report. I   hope that they will reassure the House then that there is a form of words that meets the Government's intended target. Otherwise, the Government should not be aiming at a target at all, regrettable though it might be that that would allow some organisations to glorify terrorism. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide us with some reassurance that the Government will go away and consider that.

Alistair Carmichael: We have had a useful discussion, but one aspect that needs to be emphasised is an echo of yesterday's discussion on clause 1. It is a fact that it is possible for   an individual, as well as an organisation, to fall foul   of the provision merely because of a perception on   somebody else's part. We should criminalise the intent   of the individual or organisation, not the way in which somebody else might see their actions. Many organisations that try to highlight issues in connection with places such as Palestine or Kashmir will have to tread an exceptionally fine line, and it should not be the business of the House to proscribe their activities simply because somebody else may feel that they have crossed that line.

Paul Goggins: As I predicted earlier, some of the discussion on this clause has reflected our earlier considerations in Committee. I can tell the right hon.   and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), his hon. Friends and, indeed, all hon. Members, that the Home Secretary continues to listen very carefully to all the discussions that take place during the Committee stage of this Bill—and rightly so; that is the purpose of a Committee stage.
	Now, these are the best words that we can produce. Perhaps in the end they will turn out to be the best words possible, but of course we shall consider all these discussions in Committee—

Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Paul Goggins: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me a second, because I was about to come to the point that he raised? He asked me for specific examples, and some of our discussions have related not to the specific issue that we are discussing here, which is proscription, but to the conduct of individual people. With individual people, it would be for the courts to determine whether glorification had actually taken place in a specific case. Now, however, we are discussing glorification by an organisation to an extent that requires it to be proscribed.

Kenneth Clarke: The clause extends the existing definition in the Terrorism Act 2000. My recollection is that no one in the House objected to the powers taken in 2000 to proscribe organisations promoting terrorism. However, clause 21 implies that the Government have had a difficulty—that they have wanted to proscribe an organisation but because what it was doing was glorifying past terrorism, they were unable to do so. The Minister may be able to cite some particular organisation, or at least to describe anonymously some problem that has arisen involving an organisation that ought to have been proscribed, but as its activities were based on glorification of martyrs, past causes, freedom fighters or whatever, in some other part of the world, it could not be proscribed. I am not aware of the Government having been prevented from using their powers in such circumstances. Can the Minister let us   know what provoked this measure, and why it is necessary to extend the definition? What are the organisations that now get through a loophole that will be closed by the strange introduction of the concept of "glorifying" as a particularly worrying action?

Paul Goggins: I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a specific example, but I can tell him that it is important that we have the necessary powers in place where it is necessary to   proscribe organisations that glorify acts of terror—acts that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) reminded the Committee earlier, are acts of mass murder.
	Because of his knowledge of the previous legislation, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that when the Home Secretary takes the view that a particular organisation should be proscribed, he does so not on a whim, but with great care and judgment. He then has to come to both Houses of Parliament for approval under the affirmative resolution procedure. Indeed, under the existing legislation and the existing rules, we did exactly that a couple of weeks ago. Not only is care taken with the initial decision, but that decision then has to be agreed and affirmed by both Houses.

William Cash: If we were to go through the clauses in which the term "glorification" crops up—including the definitions at the end of the Bill, the convention offences and the other stuff with which the Minister will be familiar—and we stick to the wording, but exclude all the subsections and paragraphs that include a reference to "glorification", we would still deal with the mischief that the Minister and the rest of the Government seek to overcome. That is a sensible proposition—and we would also link the provisions to the proscribed organisations, while knocking out the increasingly threadbare argument that the notion of glorification adds anything useful to the process. In fact, that notion is dangerous and unproductive. Furthermore, some have said—I do not want to make this into a certain accusation—that it was the Prime Minister who used the word "glorification" at some stage. Some people have suggested that this is a sort of face-saving operation. However, the real question is whether we are going to deal with the mischief that glorification would include. Am I getting a sense, from what the Minister is saying, that the Government are having second thoughts?

Paul Goggins: We are not having second thoughts, but we always listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who yesterday in Committee made a number of constructive interventions and speeches. I assure him that we continue to listen to him.

Rob Marris: rose—

John Denham: rose—

Paul Goggins: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham).

John Denham: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister and the House for having joined the debate somewhat late. A moment ago, my hon. Friend said that   the target of the measure was organisations that glorified terrorism, and he referred specifically to the causing of mass murder. Does he accept that many of us are concerned because our definition of terrorism is much wider than that, and that were the Government to limit the scope of the Bill to mass murder and similar acts, we would be much more comfortable with what is proposed?

Paul Goggins: The listening exercise continues, not least with my right hon. Friend. I was simply repeating the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who said that acts of terrorism were acts of mass murder.

Rob Marris: rose—

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend may have other thoughts as well, which he may share with us, now or in the future. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen has made many contributions to the debate, and continues to do so. We listen to him very carefully.

Rob Marris: In response to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), my hon. Friend said that he could not give any examples of organisations that would be caught by this measure but were not already caught by the proscription provisions in the 2000 Act. I mentioned earlier, as a concrete example, the distributors of the film "Michael Collins". Can the Minister tell me whether, were the clause to become part of an Act, they would be caught by these provisions? If not, why not?

Paul Goggins: I was about to come to my hon. Friend's question, so now is definitely the time to deal with it. When making a judgment, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will of course look at all the evidence, and I find it highly unlikely that a record company would be considered worthy of proscription in   the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West described.
	My hon. Friend, and several other right hon. and hon.   Members, referred to matters of history. I   invite them to read paragraphs (a) and (b) of suggested new subsection (5B) of section 3 of the 2000   Act, which makes it clear that we are talking about
	"conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances".

Stewart Hosie: rose—

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Paul Goggins: I will give way in a moment.
	People have spoken about Irish Republican songs, Guy Fawkes and so on, and those are connected with historical events—but the question is: is the conduct that is being glorified
	"conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances"?
	That is very precise wording, and it is very important.

Stewart Hosie: I appreciate the comments on history, but I am sure that many of my colleagues and many Labour Members will have attended, within living memory, fringe meetings at party conferences with SWAPO members, Sandinistas or people from Kurdistan. Such events are also highly likely to happen next year or the year after. It is not all ancient history. Would applauding someone from the Sandinistas or SWAPO for a legitimate struggle be covered by this catch-all provision and is not that the real problem with clause 21?

Paul Goggins: If I repeat myself, I apologise to the Committee, but I wish to draw a distinction between what may be described as cultural events or those that celebrate a part of our collective memory, such as Guy   Fawkes and bonfire night, and people who glorify acts of terror to try to encourage similar acts here and now in existing circumstances.

Dominic Grieve: Clause 21 states:
	"The glorification of any conduct is unlawful for the purposes of subsection (5A) if there are persons who may become aware of it who could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified, is being glorified as . . . conduct that should be emulated".
	If one celebrates the life of Michael Collins, it will be to some people a celebration of a historical phenomenon, but for others it might be a live issue because they believe that they are emulating Michael Collins by killing people in Northern Ireland. How does one make the distinction? The phrasing of clause 21 does not succeed in making that distinction, and I could cite countless other examples.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman and I have shared many a happy hour in Committee on this and many other Bills. Normally, he is good about reading out the whole of a particular provision, but he has just missed out the three vital words, "in existing circumstances". As I have been arguing, those are very important words.

Richard Burden: I   wish to give my hon. Friend an example of something that might happen. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) mentioned the Sandinistas, and the history of that part of the world still often leads to cultural events, many involving music. Let us suppose that a further assassination happened in South America, as Pat Robertson has urged, and that that led to a military coup in Venezuela. That might lead to people thinking that resistance to that regime might be justified. If somebody glorified the Sandinistas at a social event and referred in some way to the awful things that were going on in Venezuela, would they commit an offence under this Bill?

Paul Goggins: The point that I am making has to be seen in the context of the clause that we are discussing. We are not discussing individual conduct, but the criteria by which a particular organisation could and should be proscribed. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the clause is not about the conduct of individuals, but the conduct of organisations. I shall not speculate about specific examples.
	I shall now bring my remarks to a close. We seem to have got off to a lively start, and that is to be welcomed.

Chris Bryant: Will my hon. Friend give way before he concludes?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is an assiduous contributor to our important debates and I happily give way to him.

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend has troubled me by what he has just said. In 1986, I attended the funeral of a boy who had had petrol poured over him and been set alight by Pinochet's police in Chile. Everybody who attended the funeral was then proscribed from any political engagement in Chile. That is the kind of connection that some people are very anxious about.   I   do not see how the words "in existing circumstances"—an odd grammatical phrase—help us.

Paul Goggins: What is not helpful is the confusion that has emerged in the debate between individual conduct, which would be prosecutable under the powers in the Bill as a whole, and the criteria in this clause, which has to do with the proscription of organisations. There is a distinction to be drawn between the two and I ask my hon. Friend to reflect on that.
	In conclusion—

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Paul Goggins: How could I not give way to the hon. Gentleman, having given way to so many other hon.   Members?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I apologise for coming late to the debate. This is in no sense a tendentious observation or challenge, but   a question born of lack of understanding. In new subsection (5B)(b), what do the words
	"conduct of a description of conduct that should be so emulated"
	mean and why is it necessary in addition to the provision in (5B)(a)?

Paul Goggins: I have learnt that the hon. Gentleman usually asks questions well worthy of consideration. I   shall consider his question carefully after our deliberations, but the provision is about glorification of a particular event in a way that encourages others to emulate that event in existing circumstances. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a more precise answer at some point.
	I shall now bring my remarks to a conclusion by reminding the Committee that the clause is about the proscribing of organisations. As I said to the right hon.   and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) earlier, if an organisation is to be proscribed, the Home Secretary will need to make careful judgment and bring that judgment to be tested by this House and the other place, which is part of the proper procedure by which we proscribe organisations. It is not up to the individual whim or judgment of the Home Secretary, no matter how careful or assiduous he is. In the end, it is for the House to decide whether an organisation should be proscribed and I hope that that assures members of the Committee that they will have the final say.

Rob Marris: The problem with the wording that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) mentioned is that the first "of" should read "or". I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister has said that he will have another look at the issue, but I remind him that I gave a specific example of an organisation, not an individual. I chose the example of the distributors of the film "Michael Collins" because some people in the 26 counties and, indeed, the Six Counties of Northern Ireland, believe that the unification of Ireland is unfinished business. Rightly or wrongly, many people think that and they do so "in existing circumstances". My hon. Friend claimed that an organisation would need to glorify conduct in order to encourage its emulation to fall foul of the provision, but the wording in new subsection (5B) talks of someone
	"who could reasonably be expected to infer".
	Some people who saw the film "Michael Collins" might infer from it that their conduct in existing circumstances today should be to engage in violent conduct to finish the business in Ireland of uniting the 32 counties. It would be very wrong of them to engage in such activities, as we would all agree, but such conduct might be inferred from the film. I therefore strongly urge my hon. Friend to have another look at the provision because the distributors of that film could fall foul of it in all innocence.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill
	Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Preparation of Terrorist Acts

Alistair Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 87, page 7, line 22, after 'any', insert 'relevant'.

Michael Lord: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 88, page 7, line 27, at end insert—
	'(   )   In this section "relevant conduct" means conduct of a description specified in an order made by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State.
	(   )   A statutory instrument containing an order made by the Secretary of State under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a   resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Alistair Carmichael: It may assist the Committee and the Minister if I explain that these are probing amendments whose genesis is in discussions that we held. Liberty, in particular, had concerns about the drafting of the clause and its somewhat wide scope.
	I should say at the outset that we have argued for an offence of this sort in the past and I warmly welcome its inclusion in the Bill. I certainly support the general thrust of the clause, but we should be clear that what we are doing will mark a radical departure. The Minister may be able to correct me, but I cannot think of another occasion when we have criminalised conduct that is so inchoate that it could not be caught by other inchoate offences such as conspiracy, attempt or other species in the criminal law.
	Given the times in which we live, such a departure is necessary and there will be no argument about that from the Liberal Democrat Benches. However, if we are to take new and different directions such as that, it is important to get things right, especially because, as the Committee will see, this is an offence for which one can be sentenced to life imprisonment.
	To accentuate the positive, I certainly accept the presence of "intent" in the commission of the crime, such that
	"a person commits an offence if, with the intention of . . . committing acts of terrorism, or . . . assisting another to commit such acts".
	That is a helpful and necessary inclusion. Concern was expressed to us by Liberty, however, that because of the wider drafting of later parts of the clause it might not be too difficult for a court to infer intent in a way that was not necessarily intended by the Committee.
	Our amendment would include the word "relevant" in subsection (1) so that engaging "in any conduct" becomes engaging "in any relevant conduct" and would give the Secretary of State power to define what constitutes relevant conduct, and to do so through statutory instrument. I accept that such a definition will necessarily be wide and broad. We propose the creation of a statutory instrument so that we would not have to   revisit the matter in primary legislation, should changing circumstances render it necessary to change the definition.
	As I have already said, the amendments are probing and I am keen to hear the Minister's thinking about the clause.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raises an important point. It is not an easy matter; the criticism that can be made of the approach he advocates is that if a list has to be produced of what the acts happen to be, it could become unnecessarily prescriptive. One cannot always predict the act or conduct that first highlights the intention to give effect to committing an act of terrorism.
	It is worth bearing in mind the possible scope of the legislation, however. In that sense, it is similar to the old treason statutes—compassing and imagining the death of the king. One would not have to do very much to be liable to imprisonment for life. If someone decided that they wanted to become a terrorist and the first thing they did was to buy a new suit to wear on the day that they   blew themselves up, they would be liable, without doing anything else, to imprisonment for life, if it could be proved that the buying of the suit was linked to the intention to become a suicide bomber.
	That example seems rather a good one because, on the face of it, such a situation would be caught by the clause. I do not know how much reassurance the Minister can provide about how the clause would work in practice. That is what we need to examine. As the Minister knows, we have not expressed opposition to the clause in theory but as so often happens the theory, the detail and the practice—how the measure operates—are different things.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman said that he had given a good example. I am not sure that it is. There may be a necessity to tidy up the clause, but how would he prove that buying the suit was linked to the intention to commit a terrorist act without someone having engaged in something that was ostensibly part of such an act?

Dominic Grieve: Very simply. The person tells a neighbour or a friend that he has decided, because he is so horrified about the state of the society in which he lives, that he intends to become a terrorist—

John Bercow: Or tells his tailor.

Dominic Grieve: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Often confidences are imparted to one's tailor or to the person in the shop. The person might communicate that, and on its own it would be sufficient to render them liable to imprisonment for life. I see that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is shaking his head in his usual way and rolling his eyes, but that is the   scope of the legislation that we are putting on the statute book.

Chris Bryant: It is fanciful.

Dominic Grieve: The first thing one should do when considering legislation is to conclude how it may work in practice, and in practice that example would not be fanciful for the person concerned. When the Minister responds, I should be grateful if he would enlighten us about how he sees the clause operating in practice. Perhaps he could give us some examples of the categories of conduct that the Government are trying to catch. Clearly, that is important and it might provide some justification for the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, although as I   acknowledged at the outset there are difficulties with the amendment, as I think he agreed.

Peter Robinson: I caution against the amendment. The wording of the clause is such that the   inclusion of the word "relevant" is not necessary. Its only purpose is as something on which to hang the subsequent amendment, which defines aspects of relevant conduct. However, that list could be so extensive that the Government could not possibly envisage what its future terms might be—whether catching a bus, buying a battery or a cell phone; the list could go on for ever.
	The fact that the provision would be implemented through secondary legislation does not satisfy me. That would mean that the Government were always chasing the terrorists. An event would occur that was not within   the scope of the legislation, so they would have to release the person from custody while they brought in new legislation or updated the law to take the new conditions into account.
	The proposal is fraught with difficulties and I much prefer the language in the Bill.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) for tabling what he acknowledged were probing amendments. I hope to explain why the Government do not find it possible to   support them, but I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss them.
	The purpose of the offence of acts preparatory, which was suggested during our earlier debates on terrorism legislation, is to enable the prosecution of people known to have instigated an act of terrorism or to have been planning or preparing to commit an act of terrorism. I   am delighted that there has been a general welcome for that provision. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland reiterated that during his comments and it has been expressed on both sides of the Committee.
	We all realise that the need to protect the public means that the police and security services must intervene early when they become aware of a terrorist cell. It may not be possible to know the precise atrocity that was being planned—indeed, the terrorists themselves might not have made up their minds about a specific target; nevertheless, the offence requires clear evidence of intent to commit a terrorist act, which is of course a serious criminal matter, as the hon. Gentleman said.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) rightly emphasised that the key feature of the "acts preparatory" offence is that it can be used when terrorists' exact plans are unknown. He asks how this will work in practice. I am sure that he well understands that preparatory acts can be proven to have taken place only when the connection is made between the specific action and the terrorist act itself. Purchasing a car on its own is not an act preparatory to terrorism, but once it has been connected to the act of terror, it becomes a preparatory act. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that.
	Obviously, the offence must be drawn widely to include all the possible acts that could be preparatory acts. Attempting to create and maintain a list of all those acts that could be considered as being preparatory to a terrorist attack would be, frankly, impossible, as the hon. Gentleman made it plain before. If we had a list that included buying a suit, we would have a very long list indeed. Of course that would not be a practical or feasible challenge.
	The second and perhaps more important point is that it is likely that any list would be reactive. In other words, we would learn about preparatory acts based on the last terrorist atrocity, rather than being able to anticipate what might come in the future. It would be possible for   mischievous terrorists to work their way around that provision if we were to include it in secondary legislation, as the amendment suggests.
	We need an open situation where any preparatory act that can be linked to terrorism is captured by the offence. The risk of terrorists devising new methods of preparing for terrorist acts is too great to allow such an approach. We cannot give the opportunity to terrorists to evade prosecution in that way. Again, Lord Carlile has described clause 5 as
	"a proportional and proper response to achieve the criminalisation of the conduct described."
	I conclude by once again thanking hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their warm and general support for this new provision on preparatory acts. We hope that it will help us to bear down more successfully in future on those who would carry out acts of terror against innocent people.

Alistair Carmichael: I thank the Minister that very useful exposition of the Government's thinking. It may yet prove helpful to those who are required to try to discern Parliament's thinking at this stage. I should perhaps have been clearer in moving the amendment. I was looking not for a list such as he and other hon. Members have mentioned, but for some sort of broad definition. I   fear that this may yet prove problematic. However, I fully accept that the inclusion of intent in the creation of the offence is a very important safeguard. Given the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the   amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Rob Marris: May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that the wording of clause 5 underscores yet again the difficulties that we have as legislators in defining terrorism? Given the way the clause is worded, as I   understand it, if I give 25p to collection for the Karen National Liberation Army in Burma, I can be sentenced to life imprisonment. As someone who wishes to fight oppression and has been political all his life, and recognising that the state of Burma is in no way democratic, that it should be resisted and that that resistance should occasionally take a quasi-military form against the military, I find that outrageous. Given the difficulty with the lack of clarity about what is terrorism, if I give 25p to the KNLA or a similar organisation, I can go to prison for life.

Paul Goggins: In response to my hon. Friend the   Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob   Marris), who wants to take us into slightly wider territory, I can only repeat that clause 5 deals with preparatory acts, that it has been warmly welcomed by both sides of the Committee and that Lord Carlile sees it as being proportionate. My hon. Friend admits in his contribution that he wants to take the debate wider than that. He has concerns about the definition of terrorism. No doubt, we will return to those issues in future, and I   am sure that he will have the opportunity to make his concerns clear to the Committee again.

John Bercow: I feel certain that the Minister did not intend simply and in a cavalier fashion to brush aside the extremely important point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), but I   put it to the Minister that this is not a wider issue: it is germane to clause 5. For an organisation to plan and commit an act of terrorism, it requires explosive devices, munitions or a combination of the two and they must be purchased, and in making such a donation, the hon. Gentleman is therefore providing the organisation with the wherewithal to do so. I would be very anxious if we lost his services. I might have made a financial contribution to the Karen National Liberation Army and therefore I also speak with the authentic voice of self-interest in the matter.

Paul Goggins: I meant no disrespect to my hon. Friend—I am sure that he did not take my comments that way—and I certainly mean no disrespect to the hon.   Gentleman. He gives me an opportunity to make it clear to the Committee that the example of the Burma donation ignores the point that, under clause 5, the accused must himself intend to commit or carry out an act of terrorism or assist in doing so. So simply making a financial donation would not be caught by the offence.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Paul Goggins: I note that, just when I intend to sit down, hon. Members leap up in great numbers.

Robert Smith: Should I make a speech if that would be more useful, Sir Michael?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that the hon.   Gentleman is intervening.

Robert Smith: The use of the word "or" in clause 5(1) is important.—[Interruption.] It says:
	"A person commits an offence if, with the intention of . . . committing acts or terrorism, or . . . assisting another to commit such acts".
	Surely financing someone who plans to commit a terrorist act constitutes giving useful assistance to that person.

Paul Goggins: I want to make it abundantly clear that there must be active participation in the preparation of the act. Simply giving a financial donation in the manner that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) suggested would not be caught by the offence. As always on such occasions, we listen carefully to the points made in Committee. Of course, if improvements can be made to make things clearer in the Bill, we would consider making them. I can assure my hon. Friend that his 25p donation would not be caught by the legislation.

Dominic Grieve: If I decided to give £5,000 to Hezbollah, would that be caught, or not?

Paul Goggins: I make the point again: it is not the remote giving of money, no matter how substantial the   donation may be, but the active involvement and engagement in planning to carry out an act of terrorism that is relevant. In taking action that prepares for that act to be carried out, someone would fall foul of the offence. The remote giving of money is not caught by the offence.

John Bercow: The Minister is being very good natured and generous in these exchanges, which is seriously appreciated, but we must be careful about the use of the   word "remote" as though that disposed of the argument. Building on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), may I put it in these terms: what if someone, in making that £5,000 contribution to Hezbollah, sent with his or her cheque a letter saying, "I'm a keen supporter of your organisation. I recognise that you need funds. Here is some money to enable you, in terms that you think fit, to advance your objectives."? Would that person then be caught?

Paul Goggins: I would probably need to take further advice, but someone who makes financial contributions to a terrorist organisation would very likely be caught by other legislation if they were as actively engaged in doing so as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I would argue that there is a distinction to be drawn between a perhaps unknowing contribution to an organisation when the individual may not be fully aware of its programme or remit and the very clear commitment that someone who handed over £5,000 with a note saying, "I fully support your objectives." Clearly, there is a big difference.

David Heath: rose—

Paul Goggins: I shall sit down in a moment, and if other Members wish to make speeches, they should be   free to make them—of course, it is your decision, Sir   Michael, to allow them to do so.
	There is a distinction to be drawn. I am happy to take further advice. Of course I am also happy to ensure that we have got the wording as tight as possible in view of the comments that have been made. I remain quite happy about it; but, on reflection, we may be able to improve it still further.

David Heath: I just want to tease a little more out of the Minister on this—[Interruption.] I do not want to tease the Minister; I simply want him to understand the important point that is being made.
	I am clear about the Government's intentions regarding the clause, which the Minister knows that we support. However, we must consider the clause's current wording. If, for the purpose of argument, we excise subsection (1)(a) from the clause, it reads:
	"A person commits an offence if, with the intention of . . . assisting another to commit such acts, he engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to his intention."
	The person's intention is thus assisting another person to commit such acts, rather than direct involvement, as the Minister suggested. The conduct that would be required to commit an offence would simply be conduct in preparation for giving effect to that intention.
	Although the clause—inadvertently, I think—goes wider than intended, that does not cause me great difficulty and would not stop me from supporting it. However, it will be necessary to consider the measure again on Report, including in the context of the definition of terrorism.

Chris Bryant: I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says. However, I wonder whether the problem lies in the last "his" in subsection (1). Whose intention are we talking about? If the clause referred to the intention of the person who was going to commit the act of terrorism himself, that would be different from the   intention of the person who was merely assisting.

David Heath: That would indeed be different, but the wording could not possibly bear that construction. It is quite clear that that word "his" refers to the person who may or may not be committing an offence. If we can clarify the matter on Report, we will be in a slightly better position.

Robert Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) makes an important point about the way in which the clause could be interpreted. The Minister said in reply to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) that other legislation could deal with people who made financial donations, but that would not prevent someone from committing more than one crime through the same act. If the Government have drawn the clause too widely, a person could be caught both by it and other measures.
	Subsection (3) seems to suggest that a person who commits an offence under the clause will face a mandatory life sentence. Why did the Government think that the sentence should be mandatory? Will the Minister clarify why the courts should not have more discretion to consider the weight of sentence for such a crime?

Paul Goggins: I said that I would need to take advice on whether other offences would be committed and I   certainly intend to do that.
	The purpose of the clause is clear. The accused must be engaged in preparing for a specific act of terror and, certainly, assisting to carry it out. There is a specific relationship between the act preparatory to terrorism and the act of terrorism itself. I assure hon. Members that I will want to satisfy myself that the current wording achieves the objectives that we want.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Paul Goggins: I just want to respond to the question asked by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). The clause provides for such a penalty because an act preparatory to an act of terrorism, which can wipe out the lives of innocent men, women and children, is serious. It is quite right for such a serious act to carry the highest possible penalty.

Dominic Grieve: I was about to try to help the Minister. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) was suggesting that the   penalty was mandatory, but that cannot be correct. The words "shall be liable" in subsection (3) effectively mean that a person shall be at risk, on conviction on indictment, of imprisonment for life, so the sentence could be anything from a probation order to imprisonment for life.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have had many such discussions in   the past. It is of course not for us to define precisely what the penalty should be. A judge will decide the appropriate penalty after considering all circumstances. However, if a person is preparing for an act of terror that could wipe out people's lives, life imprisonment is an appropriate penalty that should be available.

David Heath: I do not want to detain the Minister much longer. He is of course right that the offence is most serious, so such a sentence should be available. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) wished to be reassured that the sentence would not be mandatory. I add in parentheses that the offences in clause 6 regarding training for terrorism, which allows people to commit such ghastly crimes, carries a much lower penalty, which is perhaps surprising.

Paul Goggins: I shall examine the penalties in the other clauses and we will no doubt have the opportunity to discuss them as our proceedings continue. I wanted to reassure hon. Members that such a serious penalty will be available to the courts, but it will be for the courts to decide the appropriate penalty depending on the offence that has been committed.

Rob Marris: I did not want to broaden the debate into   a consideration of what constitutes terrorism at this stage of the Committee's proceedings. However, I   wanted to point out to the Minister that clause 5 is an example, if one were needed, of how careful we must be elsewhere in the Bill when defining terrorism. If we get the definition wrong elsewhere in the Bill, I could be caught under clause 5 if I made a donation of 25p, or even, if we wish to be pedantic, if I went to the bank to draw out that money, because that would be conduct in preparation for my assistance—the donation itself. Surely that is not Parliament's intention. We must get the definition of terrorism right elsewhere in the Bill, because otherwise clauses such as clause 5 will become nonsensical.
	Question put and agreed to
	Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6
	 — 
	Training for Terrorism

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 7, line 32, leave out 'or suspects'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 89, in page 7, line 32, after 'or', insert 'reasonably'.
	No. 58, in page 8, line 26, at end add—
	'(4A)   It shall be a defence to an offence under section 6 (1), for the defendant to show that he reported any suspicion to the police or in the case of an employee to his employer or other person in authority over him.'.
	No. 42, in clause 8, page 10, line 13, at end add—
	'(7)   It shall be a defence to a charge brought under this section for an accused person to show—
	(a)   that he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the place was a place used for terrorist training; or
	(b)   that the accused was in the place used for terrorist training for legitimate research purposes.'.
	No. 59, in clause 8, page 10, line 14, at end add—
	(7)   It shall be a defence to an offence under this section for a defendant to show on the balance of probabilities that his attendance at any place used for terrorist training was—
	(a)   for the purpose of preventing the instruction or training taking place; or
	(b)   for the purpose of gathering information about the instruction or training; or
	(c)   involuntary.

Dominic Grieve: The amendments relate to clause 8 as well as clause 6. Clause 6 is entitled "Training for terrorism" and clause 8 is entitled "Attendance at a place used for terrorist training". I have no difficulty with the principle of introducing such criminal offences. However, as we have seen in our previous debates, the detail of the measures presents considerable difficulties.
	May I start with training for terrorism? Clause 6 says:
	"A person commits an offence if . . . he provides instruction or training in any of the skills mentioned in subsection (3); and . . . at the time he provides the instruction or training, he knows or suspects that a person receiving it intends to use the skills in which he is being instructed or trained . . . for or in connection with the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or . . . for assisting the commission or preparation by others of such acts or offences."
	The Minister will acknowledge that those skills are very wide. They include:
	"the making, handling or use of a noxious substance, or of substances of a description of such substances . . . the use of any method or technique for doing anything else that is capable of being done for the purposes of terrorism . . . and . . . the design or adaptation for the purposes of terrorism, or in connection with the commission or preparation of an act of terrorism or Convention offence, of any method or technique for doing anything."
	The Minister will be aware of examples of the people about whom we are talking that spring to mind from experience, such as somebody who trains someone else in chemistry, which enables that person to make explosives. Another example is someone who might train someone else to fly a small aircraft, to which could be attached crop-spraying equipment through which noxious biological or chemical substances could be distributed. A further example is someone who teaches someone else to fly, and then the plane might be used as a missile, as happened in the events of 2001 in the United States. The range is vast.
	I do not suppose that the House of Commons would have any trouble criminalising someone who, in the knowledge that an individual was asking for instruction in any of the areas to which I have referred, knew also that that knowledge would be used for the purposes of terrorism. There would be no difficulty in saying that such a person should be treated as a criminal if they had that knowledge. However, the way in which the Government have worded the clause means that it applies not only to someone who knows, but to someone who suspects. The use of the word "suspicion" in this instance can be very wide. Many things can give rise to suspicion, but suspicion in itself need not necessarily be grounded in fact. Someone may suspect someone else, but it may turn out that they are wrong. Suspicion is when we start feeling a little uneasy.
	There are some obvious examples. There is that of a teacher of chemistry at university giving a lecture to students. The teacher is dealing with substances that could be used for explosive purposes. A student in the room asks him a question, which although it might have an innocent explanation also suggests that he might have an interest in explosive properties. Experience of chemistry students at university suggests that many of them have a great deal of interest in the explosive properties of some of the substances that they use, but for frivolous purposes rather than terrorism.
	As I read the way in which the clause is drafted, unless the university lecturer immediately says to the class, "I   am sorry, but this class cannot continue with the presence of the individual who asked that question", he would have committed a criminal offence. I do not think that that can be the way that the Government intend the provision to work in practice. No doubt we shall be told again about the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions in bringing a prosecution, but in reality we must put something into the clause that provides a safeguard for the individual.
	One approach is that of amendment No. 57, which would provide that an offence cannot be committed merely on suspicion—there has to be actual knowledge. However, although that amendment is the lead amendment in the group that is before us, it is not my favoured route. The Minister will be aware that other legislation we have considered, especially money laundering provisions, also had "knows" or "suspects" as the grounds for the commission of many criminal offences—but it did at least have the saving clause that if someone believed that it was not his job to stop something, he should instead report his suspicion to a relevant authority.
	That, too, is far from ideal. The point has been well   made by the academic lobbies that have written, I   suspect, to many right hon. and hon. Members, that to an extent university lecturers and teachers, or anyone else, will be turned into potential spies. That would be an uncomfortable situation for them.
	The anxiety that has been expressed from many academic quarters—I could quote the publication if the   Minister so wished—about the implications of the clause is real. Amendment No. 58 tries to deal with that by providing:
	"It shall be a defence to an offence under section 6(1), for the defendant to show that he reported any suspicion to the police or in the case of an employee to his employer or other person in authority over him."
	That still leaves open the criticism that the Bill will turn university lecturers into spies. It is a valid point when they say:
	"We believe the fundamental bond of trust between a lecturer and their students, along with the freedom of academic inquiry, would be potentially restricted if all lecturers in certain academic fields of study were, in effect, caused to spy upon their students. They would have to make a subjective judgment about whether they had any suspicion that any of their students may use their knowledge at some point in the future to commit a terrorist act. We believe this to be too broadly written."
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that concern, which I think is a real one, not a frivolous one.

Chris Bryant: Clearly, the university lecturers are not making a frivolous point. However, at the other end of the spectrum is the chemistry lecturer or teacher who becomes convinced over time that one of the reasons for someone having joined their course is deliberately to gain information that they might then use to perpetrate terrorist offences. Would the hon. Gentleman like to rebalance a little along that spectrum?

Dominic Grieve: That is right. We know from the past that many of the experts in weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—technical engineers—were trained at Imperial college. The foundations of the Iraqi nuclear research programme were based on the knowledge of the students who had been on the relevant courses, to such an extent that I understand that now there is an informal system of regulation to try to provide a degree of vetting of those who undertake courses that may be particularly sensitive in terms of technology being imparted to such people.
	These are real issues, which I acknowledge, but we   must live in the real world. A university lecturer who   is delivering a course is placed in a difficult position if he begins to worry about a perfectly ordinary undergraduate. It is the same for someone who is training someone else to fly a small aircraft. The worry for him is that if something subsequently emerges about the individual, the chain will be followed up in exactly the same way as it was after the events of September 2001. He will then be questioned and might even be prosecuted and liable to 10 years' imprisonment. The Government must provide a let-out clause to ensure that people are not placed in an impossible position.
	The reality of most contractual relationships is that if a student pays money to acquire a skill, the classes cannot be discontinued half way through because it is thought that he is an unsavoury character. Either there has to be a fail-safe mechanism so that the student can be reported and the teacher told whether he should continue with the classes, or there must be some protection under the law. That is what amendment No.   58 is designed to achieve.
	I take amendment No. 58 seriously and regard it as more than a probing amendment. Unless the Minister can provide me with some assurance that the Government will reconsider this issue between now and next Wednesday, or can give me a positive response in this debate, I intend to put the amendment to the vote. There must be a safeguard that enables people to report to their employer or to someone in authority, saying, "I   am troubled by this student but I cannot really say anything more about it." That person would know that he was protected and would not subsequently be open to prosecution.
	The same thing, but in rather a different context, will apply to attendance at a terrorist training camp. I am sure that we all agree that that should be made a criminal offence. There is ample evidence that individuals have attended places that provide terrorist training—they went there because they wanted to be trained as terrorists. The difficulty arises over what happens if individuals find themselves at a place of terrorist training for good, valid or innocent reasons. There is no mechanism in clause 8 for any exoneration of such a person. The only fall-back position will be the discretion of, presumably, the Attorney-General—I   hope that the terrorist training place is abroad, but I suppose that it could be in the UK—or the DPP not to prosecute. There is a way through that difficulty that improves the clause, and that is what amendment No. 59 is designed to achieved. It states:
	"It shall be a defence to an offence under this section for a defendant to show on the balance of probabilities"—
	so the onus will be on the defendant, which is not something I usually like, but to make the Bill bite I   accept that we should reverse the burden on the balance of probabilities—
	"that his attendance at any place used for terrorist training was—
	(a) for the purpose of preventing the instruction or training taking place; or
	(b) for the purpose of gathering information about the instruction or training; or
	(c) involuntary."

Chris Bryant: I have some sympathy with the amendment, which is seeking to tease out the purpose of the clause. However, I am cautious about paragraph (b) because it is very broad. Anyone who merely sought instruction could use the defence that they were gathering information about instruction or training. By contrast, a journalist would be seeking to write an exposé of a training camp in another part of the world. Would the hon. Gentleman accept a different wording for his amendment?

Dominic Grieve: A different wording is, of course, possible, and I am happy to listen to any variants that the Minister may suggest. There is nothing sacred in being a journalist, just as there is nothing sacred in being a Member of Parliament or anything else. Categorising journalists as a separate group is not necessarily helpful. Someone may wish to be present to gather information about instruction or training, and an undercover journalist is an obvious example. However, I do not see   why the provision should be restricted. I fully acknowledge that it may provide a get-out clause because people could claim that they attended the camp only to gather information. A jury, however, would ask, "For what purpose?" A coherent reason   would have to be provided. A BBC journalist, for example, could say that they had heard about a camp. The police were not interested, so they sent an undercover journalist to find out what was happening. If someone simply says that they went along because they were intrigued they are unlikely to be believed. Alternatively, someone could say that they heard what was going on and were worried about it, so they decided to find out what was happening before tipping off the authorities. That person needs to be covered as well as the journalist.

Jeremy Corbyn: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), I   have great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but I am concerned about placing the onus on the defendant. A community centre—a mosque or a church, for example—could be accused of being a training centre and, indeed, nefarious activities may have taken place in part of the building. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that everyone who attends has to prove their innocence? It is a complicated area.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I suggested that in our legal system traditionally the   burden of proof lies with the prosecution who, on the whole, must prove a case. There are examples in criminal law, however, where once the main facts are established the burden of proof can be reversed, although never beyond the test of reasonable doubt. On the balance of probabilities, the defendant must give a   legitimate reason for doing something. I share the hon. Gentleman's discomfort because I am not usually in favour of such legislation, but the Government have a difficulty in dealing with a particular problem. Proving beyond reasonable doubt that someone was at a camp for the purpose of gaining instruction can be a very hard test. If the purpose behind the clause is to deter people from going to camps abroad to receive terrorist training, the Government are entitled to wield a heavy club. I am not unsympathetic to their aim, but a let-out clause is needed. My amendment is to another clause so, subject   to your consent, Sir Michael, unless the Minister satisfies me that my concerns will be taken on board and that the Government will return with another proposal, I am minded to seek the Committee's view and put it to the vote.

John Bercow: Is the word "involuntary" in paragraph (c) of my hon. Friend's amendment intended to have a broad or narrow application? Does he mean to provide an effective defence for someone who attends a terrorist training centre after being transported there against their will, or should that defence be available to people who are employed in another part of the establishment, perhaps in an ancillary and unrelated activity?

Dominic Grieve: I was thinking of the first group of people—I had not thought of the second. The defence of duress already exists, so the Minister may say that the term "involuntary" is unnecessary. We need to tease that out in debate, which is why I do not intend to be too prescriptive. However, reasons for attendance need to   be highlighted in the Bill.
	Someone might say that they did not attend a training centre voluntarily because they had been enticed there under false pretences. It was not a voluntary attendance for the purposes of the establishment. It is a difficult area, so I shall be interested to hear the views of the Minister and other Committee members. To clarify the   position, the issue can be addressed without damaging the intention of the relevant clauses. In my view it must be addressed, because if it is not we will create two powers in clauses 6 and 8 with an incredibly sweeping scope that could criminalise the innocent.

Alistair Carmichael: I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about clauses 6 and 8; my amendments Nos. 89 and 42 arise from the same concerns. They seek to achieve the same end by a different means, but they head in the same direction.
	As for the amendment to clause 8 tabled by the hon. Member for Buckingham—

Dominic Grieve: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that my constituency is Beaconsfield?

Alistair Carmichael: My apologies to both hon. Gentlemen.

Dominic Grieve: Our constituencies are not far apart.

Alistair Carmichael: It is all England as far as I am concerned.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentlemen think that all England covers Scotland as well.

Alistair Carmichael: I disagree. My constituency is a place to the north of Scotland, which is a place just south of my constituency.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield strikes exactly the   right balance in his amendments to clause 8. The accused must show that, on the balance of probabilities, he was in a training centre for one of the three legitimate reasons given in amendment No. 59. I am concerned about the potential to fall foul of clause 6 as a result of people's suspicions. Amendment No. 42 offers a small measure of protection, because any such suspicion must be reasonable—it does not cover suspicions borne of prejudice or mere fancy. The common theme of clauses 6 and 8—we dealt with it at length yesterday—is that it is all too easy to blunder unknowingly into a situation and fall foul of the legislation. I cannot see that that is what the Government intend, but it is unfortunately the consequence of the clauses' drafting. As hon. Members said yesterday in the context of clause 1, people must be   able to regulate their conduct according to this legislation, which, frankly, is not possible at the moment.
	The concern that I seek to highlight in relation to clause 8 relates to "legitimate research purposes" and investigative journalism, which often performs an important function in these situations. The Government might believe that suspicions should be investigated not by journalists but by the appropriate authorities. We all   know that in the real world matters can often be rather more complicated. The British Government of the day might choose, perhaps because of some wider concern, to ignore something that is going on in another   country that constitutes a training place for terrorism. Yesterday, we spoke about Uzbekistan. The Government of Uzbekistan have had the benefit of a great deal of very benign doubt from the British Government, if I may put it like that. Who is to say that, if a training camp were to be established in Uzbekistan, we might not go looking too hard for it? An investigative journalist, however, might want to undertake some sort of exposé, but, under the clause, he or she could feel constrained from legitimately exercising professional freedom.

Chris Bryant: I was waiting to intervene because I   thought that the hon. Gentleman was coming to the end of a paragraph. He refers to the term "legitimate research purposes", which is in his amendment No. 42. Are there any legitimate research purposes other than those to which he has already referred?

Alistair Carmichael: I never know until I read Hansard whether I have come to the end of a paragraph. I would love to pretend that my speeches have such structure. I   can anticipate some situations that would go beyond investigative journalism—some sort of academic research might need to be covered. It has to be a legitimate research purpose, and that comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield—

David Heath: A non-governmental organisation.

Alistair Carmichael: Or indeed, as my hon. Friend says, an NGO might be performing some legitimate research purpose.

Chris Bryant: The problem is the word "legitimate". The hon. Gentleman—no, it was the hon. Member for   Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) who accused the   Government earlier of using inchoate language.—[Interruption.] It was the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). They merge into one. The problem is that the word "legitimate" is, of itself, inchoate. It is merely a circular argument.

Alistair Carmichael: Legitimacy will be established according to the full facts and circumstances of any individual case. I am sorry if that sounds a little pat, but I have said that once or twice in the past.
	I did not accuse the Government of using inchoate language; I commended them for using it. I thought that it was necessary. It was not the language that was inchoate, but the acts.
	If there are to be various defences—it is the clause's total absence of defences that I find quite difficult—they have to be constructed in such a way that they can cover a multitude of circumstances that we might not necessarily anticipate now, and for that reason the language has to be drawn quite widely. It may not be the   most elegant language, but at the end of the day I   will not be pressing my amendments to a vote, although the hon. Member for Beaconsfield may well be pressing his, and if he does so, I would be minded to support him.

Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman referred to the different types of organisation that might be in such a place for legitimate research purposes, and he mentioned NGOs. Will he expand on his thinking on that important point?

Alistair Carmichael: I do not know whether the hon. Lady was present when the hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred to people who find themselves in such a place involuntarily. Young people and children in particular may be there involuntarily. An NGO may well be there to secure their release, which I would say was an entirely legitimate purpose for an NGO. An NGO acting in that way should not fall foul of the law.
	As I have already said, should the hon. Member for Beaconsfield press his amendments to a Division, for the   reasons that he outlined, with which I would probably agree, the Liberal Democrats will support him.

Rob Marris: I seek some reassurance from the Minister on amendment No. 58. For example, a university lecturer, lecturing in chemistry at the excellent university of Wolverhampton, could inadvertently fall foul of the clause by having suspicions but, not wishing to act on them, by ceasing to teach the pupil concerned for fear of   offending the pupil. I suspect that often in such circumstances a lecturer would initially downplay his or her suspicions because they did not want to cause offence in a social sense, but they would then be committing an offence in the legal sense, and there should be a middle ground, such as is set out in amendment No. 58, although I am not sure that its wording is quite right. Such suspicions could be reported to someone in authority, with the lecturer saying, "I haven't yet confronted the student, but I want to alert you to the fact that I think that they are taking a rather unprincipled interest in the chemistry I am teaching them."

Hywel Williams: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that the range of activities is vast, and I am concerned with particular activities in Wales and north Wales, outdoor pursuit training and, pertinently in this case, white water rafting on the Tryweryn river, in which some of the people involved in the events of 7 July were engaged. The range is vast, so how will the providers of such training decide whether they should suspect someone? There is a question about the degree to which they should suspect that people engaging in otherwise entirely legitimate and innocent activities are engaged in preparation for terrorism. I understand that terrorists often engage in such innocent activities for the purposes of team building and to increase a feeling of camaraderie. They might engage in such activities as part of a larger group. There is a lack of clarity for training providers.
	A further question that I worry about is not directly related to the clause, but if a group of young Asian men, possibly Muslims, turn up in white, Welsh-speaking north Wales to go white-water rafting, is the provider of the activity to suspect them merely because they are a group of young Asian males? All kinds of possibilities are opened up that are entirely undesirable.

Jeremy Corbyn: I support the   amendments moved by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, because I have some serious concerns about clause 6.
	The Bill gives itself a universal jurisdiction and seeks to cast the net very widely over potential suspects. Many of us who represent inner-city constituencies are familiar with accusations that places such as community centres and mosques are being used for terrorist training—it is easy to make such an accusation, in the same way as it is   easy for people to accuse their neighbours of being drug dealers. We must therefore be   extremely careful in drawing the net so widely that people are automatically guilty by association. I appreciate that any prosecution must occur within the terms of the Attorney-General's decision, but the matter poses some serious dangers.
	The Bill says that anyone who has visited a terrorist training camp anywhere in world is guilty by association, and I think that amendment No. 59 probably helps with   that problem. I have visited a number of refugee camps in central America that were characterised by their opponents and neighbouring Governments as terrorist training camps. During the war in El Salvador, El   Salvadorian refugee camps in Honduras were routinely accused of being terrorist training camps. I do not believe that they were terrorist training camps, but the accusation was and is made frequently. The Bill could lead to doubtful hearsay evidence of attendance at such places being used to accuse and prosecute somebody. The Minister must think carefully about amendment No. 59, which would improve clause 8.
	My final point applies to the whole Bill. The tenor of the Bill is to try to charge people as widely as possible with advocacy of, preparation for or association with terrorism, which will alienate large numbers of people who already feel quite alienated from normal British society. Many young Muslims who live in inner-urban areas already feel alienated. Are they in danger of being prosecuted for attending classes in which someone speaks or going to a community centre where it is alleged that training activities have taken place? We could end up not only criminalising the innocent by detaining them for 90 days without charge, but reducing the likelihood of co-operation with the authorities on genuine cases in which someone is seriously planning to commit criminal acts either in this country or anywhere else. We should learn from the experience in Northern Ireland between 1968 and 1971, when alienation grew so rapidly that it led to 20 years of troubles. I fear that we will alienate people who do not want to be alienated and who want to live in a decent, free-speaking, democratic society, because we are in danger of driving them in the other direction.

Paul Goggins: I congratulate you, Mr. Cook, on what I believe is a significant anniversary today. I will not reveal further details of the particular anniversary. [Hon. Members: "Go on!"] Happy birthday, Mr. Cook.
	I am grateful to the hon. Members who have tabled the amendments, which highlight important aspects of the legislation. I hope that I can persuade the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) to alter their judgment. There are one or two issues that we can perhaps examine in greater detail, but there are other issues that we cannot.
	The Committee knows that it is a requirement of the Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism, to which the UK is a signatory, to criminalise terrorist training. A number of those offences are already contained within British law in section 54 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which relates to weapons training, among other things. Clause 6 adds to section 54 of the 2000 Act to close the gap on other forms of training for terrorist purposes. That includes training to use noxious or hazardous substances, providing training in certain skills, methods and techniques where one knows or suspects that the person receiving the training is doing so for the purposes of terrorism and receiving any of that training with the intention of using it for terrorist purposes. There is currently no specific offence relating to attendance at a terrorist training camp, and clause 8 is intended to close that gap by criminalising attendance at such a camp. For the sake of completeness I should stress that that does not derive from an obligation under the Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism.

Jeremy Corbyn: What does the Minister mean when he says, "attendance at a camp"? The danger is that the provision is so broad that it will include anyone who goes anywhere near such a camp.

Paul Goggins: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 8(1):
	"A person commits an offence if he attends at any place, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; while he is at that place, instruction or training of the type mentioned in section 6(1) of this Act or section 54(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000 . . . is provided there; that instruction or training is provided there wholly or partly for purposes connected with the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences".
	I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.

Jeremy Corbyn: indicated dissent.

Paul Goggins: We have in mind places that train and prepare people to commit acts of terror.

Jeremy Corbyn: The key words are "wholly or partly". If someone attends a place where terrorist training is going on, but they know nothing about it and are training in, for example, white water rafting, they could be pulled into an incomprehensible net in which they are accused of terrorism.

Paul Goggins: We will discuss the concept of "attending", which implies that the person who is doing the "attending" knows what they are doing. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that an individual must have a purpose in attending a particular place.
	Amendment No. 57 removes any concept of suspicion, which, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has acknowledged, would significantly narrow the scope of the offence. If someone does not know that terrorist training is taking place, they will not be caught by the offence. If we remove the word, "suspects", however, the   offence would not cover someone who provides training and who has every reason to suspect, but does not know as an absolute fact, that their students are planning to use their skills for terrorist purposes. What is more, that person could continue to provide such training with impunity for as long as their suspicions do not turn into certain knowledge, which is not a satisfactory situation.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) have made the same point about chemistry lecturers and teachers, and I am prepared to think about that specific point a little more. But the hon.   Gentleman's description of the person of unsavoury character is not specific enough. The suspicion would have to be based on specific grounds. I   shall respond to him further on that point.
	Amendment No. 89 takes a rather different approach. It retains, rightly, the concept of suspicion, but would qualify it with the word "reasonably". That is not necessary. Whether or not somebody suspects is simply a fact that the prosecution would have to prove in a given case.
	Amendment No. 58 would provide a defence of informing the police—or, in the case of an employee, the employer—of that suspicion. I understand the intention behind it, which is to provide a defence to those who take steps to make others aware, but it is unnecessary. In reality, it is highly unlikely that someone who had been to the police and reported his suspicions would ever be prosecuted. I doubt that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions would be forthcoming in such circumstances. However, we would certainly not want a person who had reported their suspicions to the   police to have carte blanche. Their suspicions could be reported in such a way as to play those suspicions down, or they could be so ambiguous that the police would find it difficult to follow them up, and the trainer could then carry on providing the terrorist training with impunity. Even if he was given ever-stronger reasons for knowing that the training would be used for terrorist purposes, he would fall outside the scope of the clause if the amendment were to be made.
	I turn to the amendments to clause 8. On amendment No. 42, it is certainly not the Government's intention to   catch people who could not reasonably be expected to know that they were at a training camp. Subsection (2) provides that in order for an offence under the clause to be committed, the prosecution has to prove that the person knew or believed that training for terrorist purposes was taking place, or could not reasonably have failed to be aware of that. If the person had no reasonable grounds for believing that he was at a place where terrorist training was taking place, clearly he would not have committed any offence. The first part of the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
	The second part of the amendment would provide a defence of attending a terrorist camp "for legitimate research purposes." That would create a major loophole, to say nothing of a significant definitional headache for the courts in having to interpret it. The Government do not believe that attendance at a terrorist training camp can ever be considered legitimate. It has been suggested, not least during this debate, that attendance at such a camp, perhaps by journalists or by a non-governmental organisation, may be considered valid. However, we consider that attendance at terrorist training camps by such individuals lends legitimacy to such groups and creates an environment in which terrorism may flourish. That is wholly wrong. The Government do not consider that there can be justifiable reasons for knowingly attending a terrorist training camp at which individuals are trained in acts of terror that would lead to innocent people losing their lives. Terrorism is not a valid form of political expression, in this country or abroad.

Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Paul Goggins: No, because I have already heard murmurs around the Chamber of Members once again returning to the issue of the definition of terrorism. We have discussed that here today and elsewhere, and will no doubt return to it.
	Until now, those who have attended terrorist training camps have been able to claim, perhaps falsely, that they were simply there in a humanitarian capacity—perhaps brewing the tea. We intend to close off such defences, which can allow people to evade punishment although they are clearly complicit in the provision of training for terrorists.
	Exactly the same logic applies to much of amendment No. 59. We do not believe that those who attend terrorist training camps on the grounds that they were there just to gather information should escape the consequences of their actions.

Jeremy Corbyn: As regards people being accused of attending a terrorist training camp in another country, if a journalist visits that place to collect evidence and is prepared to produce it in a British court, are we then to prosecute the journalist as well as the people who have taken part in the training? That is the logic of the Minister's argument.

Paul Goggins: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to subsection (2)(b), which says:
	"a person attending at that place throughout the period of that person's attendance could not reasonably have failed to understand that instruction or training was being provided there wholly or partly for such purposes."
	Nobody can unknowingly remain in that training camp—

Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Paul Goggins: No—I am trying to deal with the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
	The Government's argument to my hon. Friend is that there can be no grounds for people to attend a training camp when they know that it is a training camp and there is no legitimate purpose for them to be there. My hon. Friend may agree or disagree with that, but it is the view that the Government hold.

Robert Smith: The Minister seems unwilling to address the point that someone might be attending the terrorist camp with the express purpose of exposing it and trying to get it closed down to prevent the threat of   terrorism. Under the current wording, without an amendment to provide some kind of defence, they could be found guilty of a crime when doing a public good.

Paul Goggins: If somebody has reason to believe that they know where a training camp is, they should report it to the authorities so that they can deal with it. It is not for an individual journalist to go on a maverick expedition to ascertain the truth. If that journalist has grounds for believing that there is a training camp in place and that they are the only person to know that, they should report it to the authorities—it is not for them to undertake their own investigation.

John Bercow: With the greatest respect to the Minister, it seems to me, and probably to many people, that much of the best of British journalism is indeed based on maverick expeditions. It is unwise for him to rule that out of order as a possible line of defence.
	Will the Minister focus on another element of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—involuntary attendance? There is nothing spurious or flippant about that—it is a very important point.

Paul Goggins: I will deal with that point specifically when I conclude my remarks.
	The Opposition also suggest that there should be a defence for those who try to prevent the training. Again, we are worried that that would create a sizeable loophole. If someone knows that terrorist training is happening, the appropriate course of action is to leave that place and alert the relevant authorities.
	Amendment No. 59 deals also with those who may, against their will, be at a place where terrorist training occurs. Again, I am not sure that that is necessary because clause 8 provides that a person commits an offence if he "attends" a place where training occurs. Attendance implies voluntary participation rather than being kidnapped or held against one's will. Attendance implies that the person has some intention of being there. The context is important but the change would create a loophole, which terrorists would not be slow to exploit.

John Bercow: It is important to be pedantic about the matter and to explore all possible scenarios. I do not agree with the Under-Secretary about intention. There could be circumstances whereby a person is employed as part of an operation on or adjacent to the site where terrorist training takes place. The said individual could be aware of his attendance on the site but engaged in a wholly unrelated activity.

Paul Goggins: I repeat that attendance implies a voluntary presence. That is clear. Anybody who is held against their will would not be caught by the clause. However, those who are there voluntarily, in whatever role, will be caught.

Sally Keeble: I want to consider the point about the journalists and the mad trips. If journalists had heard a rumour that something might be going on but there was no substantial suspicion, gained entry to the relevant place, found that training was happening and then left, they would not be caught by the clause because they had left and reported the matter. It would therefore be possible for journalists to act, provided that they did not   knowingly enter something that was obviously a terrorist training camp. Is that how the clause would work?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is right. Journalists who found themselves in a terrorist training camp, realised what was happening, left and reported its existence to the authorities, would clearly not be caught by the offence. However, if they remained there, they could be caught. As I have made abundantly clear, if people know that terrorist training is taking place but continue to participate and be present there freely, not against their will, they could and should be caught by the clause.
	I stress to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are prepared further to consider the point about the chemistry teacher or lecturer that my hon. Friend the   Member for Wolverhampton, South-West raised to ensure that the Bill contains the assurance that we all want. As to the rest, the hon. Gentleman must make his own decision.

Dominic Grieve: I have listened carefully to the Under-Secretary. He knows that I did not intend to press amendment No. 57 to the vote because I accept that   "suspects" is necessary. We should therefore concentrate on the safeguards that may provide a let-out for those who would otherwise be criminalised.
	I am slightly reassured by the Under-Secretary's comments on the point about the university lecturer. However, that slight reassurance is heavily tempered by his suggestion that our proposal would create ambiguity in that someone could report a suspicion to the police but continue to help in training in the knowledge that it was intended for terrorist purposes. That is rather far fetched and I am unable to accept it. Let us consider the   basis for the money-laundering provisions. For all I   know, solicitors or accountants may report suspicion in the belief that they could be exonerated from subsequent participation. The Under-Secretary's argument would be equally valid in that case, yet the Government were happy to provide a framework similar to our proposal.

John Bercow: I wonder whether I understood my hon. Friend correctly because the scenario that he outlined is even more bizarre than I imagined. Does he suggest that the Under-Secretary depicted a scenario in which an individual is so foolish or reckless as to notify the state of the existence of a training centre of which it is not aware only to continue his nefarious activities there? He would be something of a chancer.

Dominic Grieve: The Under-Secretary certainly appeared to imply that. He argued that my suggestion that people who had a suspicion could escape prosecution by showing that they had told their employer, the head of the department where they were working in the case of   the university lecturer, or the police, was somehow not appropriate because it would facilitate such training. For that reason, I intend to press amendment No. 58 to the vote because I want to encourage the Under-Secretary in the review that he will conduct between now and next Wednesday. Similarly, I shall seek to press amendment No. 59 to a vote thereafter, with your leave, Mr. Cook, because there is a real issue involved here in respect of attendance at a place where terrorist training takes place. So, with the leave of the Committee, I seek to withdraw amendment No. 57, and I hope that I shall be able, initially, to put amendment No. 58 to the vote.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment proposed: No. 58, in clause 6, page 8, line 26, at end add—
	'(4A) It shall be a defence to an offence under section 6(1), for the defendant to show that he reported any suspicion to the police or in the case of an employee to his employer or other person in authority over him.'.—[Mr. Grieve.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 219, Noes 315.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8
	 — 
	Attendance at a place used for Terrorist Training

Amendment proposed: No. 59, page 10, line 14, at end add—
	(7)   It shall be a defence to an offence under this section for a defendant to show on the balance of probabilities that his attendance at any place used for terrorist training was—
	(a)   for the purpose of preventing the instruction or training taking place; or
	(b)   for the purpose of gathering information about the instruction or training; or
	(c)   involuntary.—[Mr. Grieve.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 223, Noes 316.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Rob Marris: Clause 8(4) states that a summary conviction in England and Wales could result in a sentence of up to 12 months, but in Scotland only six months. Why is there a discrepancy?

Paul Goggins: If my hon. Friend will be patient, I shall drop him a line very soon with the answer to that question. It is important that all the penalties set out in such legislation are coherent and fit well with each other according to the seriousness of the offence.

Frank Cook: I shall now put the Question—

John Bercow: rose—

Frank Cook: I call Mr. Bercow.

John Bercow: I apologise for being slow to rise and I   am sorry if an air of world-weary cynicism greeted my attempt to contribute. I simply wish to ask the Minister politely if the hurried written note that he has promised will be forthcoming before the vote.

Paul Goggins: I will make the note available at the earliest opportunity. As soon as I am able to provide it to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), I will be happy to provide a copy to the hon. Gentleman and to ensure that all hon. Members know what it may contain.
	Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 9 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12
	 — 
	Trespassing etc. on nuclear sites

Paul Goggins: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in clause 12, page 12, line 34, at beginning insert 'so much of'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 101 to 103.

Paul Goggins: I wrote earlier this week to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) to explain the purpose of these amendments. The clause makes it a criminal offence to trespass on a licensed nuclear site. By their very nature, such sites contain hazardous material and hazardous activities are carried out there. Although all sites are guarded, unauthorised entry deflects the guard force from its primary duty of securing the site and could also be used by terrorists as cover for an attack. Unauthorised entry to sites could lead to dangers to individuals, not only from the possibility of injury from the plant and equipment present, but from the risk that they could be seen as a terrorist threat and met with an appropriate response. The Government therefore believe that it is right that in the current climate we do what we can to strengthen the security regimes at those sites.
	As currently drafted, the offence will apply to all areas of a licensed nuclear site, plus to any other premises that   sit within the secure perimeter boundary. That is because sometimes, the fences can sit just outside the area of the licensed site. Since the Bill was introduced, we have looked again at the provisions with a view to ensuring that no more land is covered than is strictly necessary.
	At a small number of licensed nuclear sites, there are significant pieces of land which are part of the licensed site—

Dominic Grieve: But outside.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman reads my mind. There are some parts that sit outside the security perimeter.
	No licensable activities have ever taken place on that land; indeed, sometimes it is used by members of the public, under local arrangements with the site operator. It has never been the Government's intention to have the criminal offence of trespass apply to activity outside the secure perimeter boundary at nuclear sites, and it is clearly important that the premises to which the new offence applies should be evident and unambiguous.
	The group of four amendments will make it clear that the criminal offence applies only to trespass beyond the secure perimeter that is relied on to protect the nuclear site from intruders.

Jeremy Corbyn: The amendment suggests that anyone outside the perimeter fence, whether at Fylingdales or somewhere else, would not be guilty of trespass. At what point, as they approach the fence, do they become trespassers? Do they have to touch the fence, climb it,   look at it, hang something from it, cut it—[Hon.   Members: "Sit on it?"] That does not often happen in this place. Will the Minister clarify the amendment?

Paul Goggins: I hope that I can clarify things to my hon. Friend's satisfaction. When people are outside the security perimeter any invasion beyond the perimeter fence would be an offence, but if they were on the licensed site, outside the perimeter fence, they would not be caught by the offence. We want it to be clear that the perimeter fence is what counts. Any movement beyond the perimeter fence would be caught by the measure.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I press the Minister a little on the matter? I have some experience of visiting nuclear sites and I want to know at what point I could become a criminal. If a group of wholly innocent people were encamped outside AWE Aldermaston to protest about the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons and if, to protect themselves from rain and wind, they attached the edge of a tarpaulin to an outside perimeter fence, but had not crossed the fence, would they be committing a criminal act?

Paul Goggins: If they remained outside the perimeter fence they would not be caught by the offence, although I imagine that the people responsible for the site might want to engage them in discussion about the tarpaulin that they had put up against the fence. Provided they   remained outside the fence, they would not be committing an offence under these provisions.

David Taylor: rose—

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Paul Goggins: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dominic Grieve: Perhaps I can help the Minister. Unless the law has changed, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) would have to make an effective and substantial entry through the fence to be a trespasser, within the meaning of the clause as I understand it—in exactly the same way as if one were a burglar. I do not know whether that is helpful or whether the Minister agrees; perhaps he would like to tell me.

Paul Goggins: We seem to be getting into deeper water than anticipated. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) wanted to intervene—

David Heath: rose—

Paul Goggins: As does the hon. Gentleman. This is sparking a lively and interesting discussion. I do not know how many times I shall need to say that the point at which people go beyond the fence is when they will be   guilty of an offence under the clause. As long as they   remain outside the fence, even if the site is licensed, they will not be committing an offence.

David Taylor: One of the branches of pure mathematics that I greatly enjoyed was topology. At what point does the fence end and outside the fence start? That is a serious point. Does being outside the fence include touching it or putting one's fingers through it? Will my hon. Friend define the helpful definition that we heard a few moments ago of a substantial intrusion through the fence, so that innocent protesters are not caught by the clause?

Paul Goggins: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) may be more familiar than me with the precise wording, but there would have to be substantial entry beyond the fence. That is clear. My understanding is that the individuals concerned would physically have to go beyond the fence; in that sense there would need to be substantial entry to the site. In fact, the amendments are intended to be helpful and to clarify where people would not be committing an offence, whereas if we left the Bill as it is, they would be committing an offence even if they stood outside the perimeter fence and were on a licensed site.

David Heath: My fear is that this is a rather academic argument. [Hon. Members: "It is very serious."] It is   serious because it appears that the police do not need these provisions to arrest someone approaching the   fence. Experience outside RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire shows that people can be arrested under previous terrorism legislation simply for wandering around outside a designated area.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman may regard this as an academic exercise. The Government's intention is to make it clear that those who may be outside a perimeter fence but on a licensed site are not committing an offence. If we left the Bill as drafted, they would be doing so. We do not think that fair or appropriate. We want to clarify the law, and I hope that the Committee will find these amendments helpful.

David Drew: I apologise for missing the earlier remarks; I was in Westminster Hall. Will the Minister clarify what happens when a site is de-licensed. From my dealings with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd over the years, I think that the rights of someone to enter such a site are perfectly clear at the moment. If the status of a site changes, will the provision remain in place, or will it go, as the site is de-licensed?

Paul Goggins: I can confirm that the provision will cease to apply when a site is de-licensed. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the confirmation that he seeks. With that, I conclude my remarks.

Dominic Grieve: I am delighted that the Government have moved the amendment. I had read the text as it stands and, indeed, had drafted an amendment, but I then discovered that the Government had got there first, whereupon it did not seem necessary to table such an   amendment myself. The Bill as drafted is deeply ambiguous about whether the provision would apply to   the area outside the perimeter fence that was subject to the current restrictions. As I understood that the Government wanted to restrict things in that way, I am delighted that they have made it clear that that is not their intention.
	As for the questions that were asked earlier, my recollection—I may have this wrong—is that the definition involves effective and substantial entry, so that touching the fence would not constitute entry, but cutting the fence with wire cutters and starting to crawl through it almost certainly would, apart from the fact that the criminal damage to the fence would enable one   to be instantly arrested. As for climbing over, when one is on top of the fence is the point where one would be caught by the provisions.
	It may be of interest to the Committee if I add that the   key case is called R. V. Collins, which is well known to all law students. It concerns a naked young man, wearing only socks, perched on top of a ladder that was resting on a house that he was about to enter as a burglar. The subject matter tends to cause a great deal of hilarity, and the judgment itself—I am happy to give the reference to any hon. Member who may wish to have it—is very amusing indeed, even if the background circumstances are rather less so.

John Bercow: Give us the details.

Dominic Grieve: I shall do so privately behind the Speaker's Chair to my hon. Friend afterwards.
	I welcome what the Minister has said; and, of course, we accept these amendments.

David Heath: I also welcome these amendments—they are obviously a sensible adjustment to the original text—but I want to enter an appropriate reservation. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 was   enacted not many months ago, and it is slightly disappointing to be revisiting provisions that we extensively debated so recently during the passage of that Act. I wish that we could get legislation right and encompass the correct areas in the first instance, rather than having to return to it constantly, perhaps because it was introduced in haste and with insufficient care. Other than making that point, I support these amendments.

David Drew: I want to pursue my earlier inquiry a little further.
	Our debate relates closely to what has happened at RAF Fairford, which I have visited on several occasions to talk to my constituents and others. Part of the problem surrounding the dispute and the question of   section 44 powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 was   disagreement about where the actual perimeter was. During the course of the conflict—it was a real conflict—the authorities moved the perimeter, which forced people away from their original encampment because they were told that it was within the site perimeter.
	It might be that the boundary around nuclear sites is more established and understood, but I know from my experience at Berkeley that disputes are ongoing about exactly where the full perimeter goes. I know as someone who is trying to pursue the de-licensing of that site that   the matter is subject to arguments about land ownership. The situation is thus not as straightforward as simply saying, "This is the site, so everyone knows where they are."
	Will the Minister clarify whether the exact perimeter of a site will have to be laid down before people are excluded from it? The matter might be fairly academic, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr.   Heath) suggested, but a nasty situation can arise in the case of a dispute, because people can feel that their rights are being taken away if the designation of a perimeter is changed.

Jeremy Corbyn: I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government amendments. If they clarify exactly where people may be before they become miscreants under the Bill, they will improve the   situation. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that there is a question about what the actual perimeter is. I heard what the Minister said about the perimeter fence, but I can envisage a situation in which the people who are protesting at the Atomic Weapons Establishment site at Aldermaston and occupying the ground and car park outside the fence could rapidly find themselves encircled owing to an increase in the size of the fence and site. One can imagine a situation of continual encroachment.
	Why is clause 12 in the Bill at all? What is the purpose behind it? Its whole purpose seems to be an attempt to close down, limit and restrict legitimate and peaceful demonstrations against nuclear power, the development of nuclear weapons and nuclear missiles. It could criminalise many people who are undertaking legitimate protest against the immoral possession of nuclear weapons.
	When we think of the famous demonstration that took place at Greenham Common for a long time, the current demonstrations at Faslane and Aldermaston and the frequent demonstrations outside Fylingdales and several other places, we realise that we could end up   criminalising many people who are undertaking something that I believe to be a perfectly correct and   moral activity. The Government should explain why nuclear sites are covered by the Bill at all. The   Government amendments represent a bit of an improvement, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud pointed out, they will be open to all kinds of misinterpretation and smart fiddles at a later stage.
	Under the clause, as amended, the authorities in charge of any of the designated sites could presumably move the boundaries quite easily. What is the point at which the boundary will be registered, and who will know what it is? Will it be clearly delineated and marked? Such questions matter because the measure might cause people serious legal problems. I hope that the Minister will clarify my points, some of which have been expressed to me by many in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and a lot of peace protestors throughout the country.

Frank Cook: Order. The hon. Gentleman has effectively opened up a clause stand part debate. At present, we are focusing our attention on amendment No. 100. If the Minister were to respond in the manner requested, that would effectively turn the debate inside out. I ask the Minister to confine his remarks to Government amendment No.100 for the moment; otherwise we shall do away with the stand part debate.

Paul Goggins: It might be helpful to my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) if I say nothing at this point and wait for the stand part debate, when I may be in a position to respond to them more fully than would be permitted at this moment.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendments made: No. 101, in page 12, line 36, leave out from 'force' to end of line 42 and insert
	'as lies within the outer perimeter of the protection provided for those premises; and
	(b)   so much of any other premises of which premises falling within paragraph (a) form a part as lies within that outer perimeter.'.
	No. 102, in page 13, line 11, at beginning insert 'so much of'.
	No. 103, in page 13, line 13, leave out from 'force' to end of line 19 and insert
	'as lies within the outer perimeter of the protection provided for those premises; and
	(b)   so much of any other premises of which premises falling within paragraph (a) form a part as lies within that outer perimeter.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
	Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Paul Goggins: With your permission, Mr. Cook, I will follow up the inquiries made by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Stroud. I do not think that I will be able to give as full answers to them now as I would like, given the seriousness of the issues that they have raised. Both   my hon. Friends and others have a record of campaigning in this area and have a particular interest in it. I acknowledge and respect that. It is important that I provide my hon. Friends with a full answer.
	The essential answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North is that the provision is in the Bill to deal with the threat that is posed by unauthorised people who enter a nuclear site. The particular relevance is where they might have entered for the purposes of terrorism. That is why it is relevant for the provision to be in the Bill.
	I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that the amendments to the clause relate only to a few licensed nuclear sites. We are dealing with licensed sites, part of which exist outside the perimeter fence. I think that my hon. Friend understands that. The question that he asks—this is why he deserves and will receive a fuller answer from me at a later stage—is about the process for   deciding what is the designated site, the process for de-designating that site and the process for deciding where the boundary fence should be and how easily that can be moved. I do not know the answer to those questions now, but I shall try to provide them at a later stage.
	I emphasise that the provision is to deal with a licensed site that is outside the perimeter fence. I hope that on the whole it will help to clarify the position and help my hon. Friends with some of the concerns that they may have had.

Jeremy Corbyn: I listened to the Minister and I   understand the amendments that have been accepted. I   wrote down his words, which were "purposes of terrorism on entering the base". There were many occasions during the Greenham Common women's camp when women climbed over or cut the fence and entered the base to paint flowers on nuclear missiles and   hang drapes on tanks—entirely peaceful things. Under the Bill, anyone who climbed into the Aldermaston site and painted something on the walls to the effect that they believed that nuclear weapons were dangerous, illegal and immoral and that this country should adhere to the non-proliferation treaty would not be accused of criminal damage or trespass, as at present, but would become terrorists, potentially detained for 90 days without going to court while questioning took   place, and might then receive a long period of imprisonment.
	What message does that send? I am sure that the Minister has many friends who belong to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and have been active in the peace movement all their lives, as have Members on both sides of the House. Are we advancing anything by designating as terrorists people who, by their very nature, are opposed to violence, terror and the existence of nuclear weapons, and who in many cases are equally opposed to nuclear power? I honestly do not see the point of the clause standing part other than gratuitously to criminalise a large body of people who act for entirely peaceful purposes and who have brought about significant political changes. That is simply not a sensible way to proceed. It will further alienate large sections of the population who do not want to be alienated, but do want to engage in serious political debate about the morality of nuclear weapons.

John Bercow: With what offence would such individuals be charged under clause 12? On the surface, I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I have a strong aversion to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and, indeed, to the activities of the Greenham Common women. I am glad that the Coalition for Peace through Security, Peace through NATO, and my noble Friend Lord Heseltine were effective in campaigning against the   Greenham Common protesters. However, those protesters were not terrorists and should certainly not be categorised with people who are.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am not sure how grateful I should be for that intervention, but I shall do my best to accept it in the spirit in which it is offered. I should fess up, as I am national vice-chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which I first joined at the age of 16. I have never left it, so I have continuity on the subject. When the history of the 20th century is finally written—

Alan Haselhurst: Order. I think that the Committee can be spared the history of the 20th century. The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that he is being led astray by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John   Bercow), but I am determined that he should stay on the straight and narrow.

Jeremy Corbyn: I never wish to be led astray by the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). Future generations will recall the Greenham Common women more than they will recall the Coalition for Peace through Security, and Peace through NATO—that is the only point I wish to make on the subject.
	The hon. Gentleman made a serious point about for   what offence the protesters would be prosecuted. The Minister referred to people entering a site for the purposes of terrorism. He will correct me if I or the hon. Member for Buckingham have misunderstood the provision, but my reading is that everyone who enters a designated nuclear site—whether a power station, a base, a research site and so on—for whatever purpose, whether to plant a bomb or paint flowers on something, would be treated exactly the same and would be convicted under the Bill.
	It would be helpful if the Minister explained exactly what he meant, because it appears to me that the provision is gratuitously trying to entrap large numbers of peace movement members within the ambit of terrorism. At the moment, they would probably be charged with criminal damage for breaking a fence and also trespass. Anyone who plants a bomb commits several criminal acts, not least acts preparatory to murder, which are already within the ambit of criminal law. Why, therefore, are nuclear sites and bases included in the Bill? What information is displayed outside bases to make clear the point at which someone becomes a suspect under the terrorism legislation when they cross a threshold? Will signs be put up on all those sites, and will they be designated in that way? These are serious matters as a substantial number of people may end up in prison for a long time.

John Bercow: I fear that unless I explain the point it might sound frivolous when it is not. It is important that   people should be notified and forewarned, because I rather suspect that at the Labour party conference the individual concerned was not remotely conscious that he was within an environment in which, by virtue of his attendance and noise, he could be charged under the legislation under which it was proposed that he be charged.

Jeremy Corbyn: Walter Wolfgang has also been at demonstrations outside nuclear sites, so perhaps that should be considered as well. There is a point here about information. Those who have been in the countryside recently will know that the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 has resulted in signs all over the place indicating which pieces of land are open access and which are not. It is possible to do that, and at the very least there should be some indication outside these sites. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the points made by me, the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew).

Rob Marris: I welcome you to the Chair, Sir Alan. I   could do with a little help from the Minister, following on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). I am a little confused about what clause 12 is doing in the Bill. The Bill's short title is "Terrorism Bill". As far as I can see, clause 12 makes no mention directly of terrorism. It is an amendment to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. When I look at the explanatory notes for clause 12, they make no mention of terrorism or terrorists, or any such word. Will my hon. Friend explain a little more what clause 12 is doing in this Bill, a terrorism Bill?

David Drew: I do not want to take much more of the Committee's time. I know that the Minister is going to write to me—I welcome that and I hope that he will copy that letter to other hon. Members as well—but I have some concerns about the difference between a licensed site and the perimeter of that site. They are not one and the same thing, and people legitimately standing outside a site might be arrested on terrorist offences because they happen to be on what is decreed to be part of the licensed site even though they may be outside the perimeter.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) that this is a completely inappropriate place to introduce this change. I shall make my point as succinctly as I can. For all sorts of reasons, our nuclear establishments are secure places, but by their very nature they are working places. People who go on to them are passholders and as such they have an obligation to do their job and not in any way threaten the country by the nature of their work. As much as we are trying to keep people out, this has implications for people who work on the inside of such an establishment. I am not sure whether this measure has been thought through sufficiently. If we are talking about someone who did something as a member of staff, that could bring in the whole question of whether they were acting illegitimately and therefore threatening the country and so would be subject to the Bill and deemed to be terrorists. This is beginning to open up a can of worms. I ask the Minister, in the nicest possible way, to reconsider the clause. It may have been inserted with good purpose, but it gives rise to a lot of questions that I am not sure can be answered at this time.

John Bercow: I am at a peculiar disadvantage, although I do not think that I am uniquely in that position to judge by the contributions that have been made so far. I say that I am at a disadvantage because I   do not have section 15 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 readily to hand. I would go further and vouchsafe to the House that I do not have a copy of the Act or any part thereof readily to hand. However, there is a serious issue here. Clearly, clause 12 is designed to amend the provisions of that Act passed only a short time ago this year. I have read clause 12 patiently and with some care on four occasions, but I am none the wiser.
	A consensus is emerging and, while it is implicit rather than explicit, it is important—in matters of this kind, it is incredibly important that our terms are tightly defined and that the legislation is narrowly confined to that which it needs to address. If we do not do that, we will not only create uncertainty, because people will not know what many of the clauses mean, but be in danger of debauching the currency of debate about terrorism legislation itself, which greatly bothers me.
	I cannot see why this clause must be in this Bill. It may be perfectly worthy, but it would be more effectively and appropriately incorporated in different legislation.

Stewart Hosie: Will the Minister make it clear that the objective is to charge people with the criminal offence of trespass under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and not to create a new terrorism offence of trespassing on designated protected sites?

Paul Goggins: In reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie), clause 12 adds civil nuclear sites to the category of sites that fall within the ambit of the criminal trespass regime created by sections 128 and 129 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. In this country, there is a respected tradition of the right to protest, but there is no right to trespass.
	I suspect that many of my hon. Friends, including my   hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), would not be happy with the provision, regardless of the legislation in which it was introduced. As I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, the offence of trespass is wider than only terrorists, but it should be extended in this Bill because someone who trespasses on a nuclear site poses a terrorist risk. The hon. Member for   Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said that he cannot see the relevance of clause 12, but the offence would be extremely relevant if a terrorist were to gain access to a nuclear site.
	The purpose of clause 12 is not only criminalising people who protest, but protecting them properly. If a protester got on to a nuclear site, it may be assumed that he is a terrorist and that he presents a risk, in which case the action taken may be wholly disproportionate to what the individual concerned intended, so the fact that someone is on a nuclear site without authority puts him at risk. Clarity around the law will protect the interests of protesters, who should know where they stand and where they can and cannot go.

Michael Weir: The Minister has confused me. He is discussing the presumption that someone is a terrorist if he is on a particular site. Notwithstanding the fact that that will be an offence under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, will such a person be detained under the provisions passed yesterday?

Paul Goggins: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on a situation in which somebody, whether he is a terrorist or a protestor, trespasses on to a nuclear site, and those responsible for security must make a quick decision about that individual's purpose and intent? I assume that those responsible for security would fear the worst and act accordingly. Clause 12 makes it clear that people are not permitted to trespass on such sites and that there are consequences to doing so. The last thing that we want is for somebody who is a terrorist to stray on to a nuclear site and do dreadful harm with the machinery and power that exists there.

John Bercow: Notwithstanding the Minister's explanation and justification, I find myself unpersuaded. Given that he prays in aid the importance of achieving clarity, will he be good enough to tell the House with what precise offence the individual would be charged if it   transpired that he was not a terrorist but merely a   trespasser? Given that the Minister refers to the consequences that must flow from the act, what would they be in terms of the range of penalties?

Paul Goggins: As I said in response to the hon. Member for Dundee, East, the offences with which individuals would be charged were they to be found unauthorised on a nuclear site, with all the attendant risks that I described, would be those contained in sections 128 and 129 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North asked about the clarity of information at a nuclear site about where it begins and ends and what the consequences would be for people who stray on to it without authority. That is a fair point. The signs at the site should make the legal position of anybody who trespasses very clear. I assume that that is so, but I will check to make sure. Certainly, as the new powers and new offence come into operation we will need to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date.

Jeremy Corbyn: At many sites, it is clear where the fence is but not clear who owns, controls or occupies the   land immediately outside it, so one could easily end up criminalising people for taking part in a legitimate and peaceful demonstration. Will the Minister clarify that?
	Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between somebody trying to enter a base with a terrorist intent to cause damage by explosion or other means—not to mention the damage that would be caused by nuclear weapons being exploded anywhere—and peace protestors whose whole raison d'être is to stop the use of nuclear weapons and not to cause any damage or violence?

Paul Goggins: Of course I accept that people may be in an unauthorised place for different purposes, but those responsible for security may not be able to make a quick judgment about that. If they had to do so, they would, rightly, fear the worst.
	Let me put another scenario to my hon. Friend. What if a terrorist decided to enter an unauthorised nuclear site posing as a protestor, perhaps even with other protestors? How would the differentiation be made in that case? We need clarity in the law to ensure that anybody on one of those nuclear sites without the authority to be there is outside the law and guilty of trespass under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.

John Bercow: rose—

Paul Goggins: I am conscious that we have many other issues to discuss, but I am always tempted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

John Bercow: The Minister is extremely courteous, and I appreciate that. Given that he talks about clarity, let me probe him a little further. If the individual is not   a terrorist and is present for what many people, including the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), would regard as a much more modest and innocent purpose, would that be reflected in the penalty that he or she might face? Will it be among the penalties in the 2005 Act, which I do not have in front of me and would need to know more about, or is the driving criterion the seriousness of the establishment that is being attended? There is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty, and it is not only in my head.

Paul Goggins: In order to give the hon. Gentleman a precise answer I would need to stray into the next clause, which clearly stipulates that the maximum length of imprisonment for this offence would be 15 years. It would of course be for the court to decide on the appropriate penalty in the light of all the circumstances. I would assume—I think that it is a fair assumption— that if somebody was there as a protestor, albeit that he had committed an offence, the court would bear that in mind when setting the penalty. Anyone who was there and proved to be a terrorist might face an even heftier penalty because he might be guilty of other offences. I   therefore hope that I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the penalty would be proportionate to the circumstances. It would be for the court to decide, but a serious penalty is associated with the specific offence because it may be appropriate.
	I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and place a copy of the letter in the Library. He raised important issues on clarity about authorised sites and the perimeter fence. They require a detailed answer and I am happy to provide it.

Lynne Jones: Like many hon. Members, I am oscillating about the clause. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr.   Drew), I have constituents who were detained, stopped and searched and, in many cases, harassed under the Terrorism Act 2000 for protesting peacefully outside Fairford—I have good evidence that they were inappropriately harassed. I am worried that similar circumstances could arise under the Bill. Although I am clear about the boundary and I can understand that someone who crosses the boundary commits an offence, I remain unclear about the reason for including such a provision in the Terrorism Bill. If someone got over a   perimeter fence and proved to be a terrorist, surely he could be charged under other legislation rather than simply being charged with crossing the perimeter fence.

Paul Goggins: Indeed, there may be other legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud speculated about someone who might be authorised to be on a specific site, for example, through working there, but had a malevolent purpose and might be a terrorist. That person would be guilty of other offences and charged appropriately. People who trespass might be guilty of other offences and charged appropriately. I hope that I   can offer the clarity that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) seeks. Her constituents, to whom the police may have spoken and intervened in their activities, would not be guilty of trespass under the clause if they were outside the perimeter fence, even if they were on a designated site.
	Through our amendments, we tried to provide clarity in the law, which will be helpful to constituents such as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud.

David Drew: As the Under-Secretary should know, the   problem at Fairford is that the police determined the perimeter around the base. It was not the perimeter of Fairford—the police chose a zone that was well around Fairford. They either exclude people from it or issue them with section 44 certificates. The provision gives the authorities enormous power and we need to know exactly what it entails for law enforcement agencies' responsibilities.

Paul Goggins: Again, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. In the letter that I send him, I shall set out the process whereby such decisions are made. How decisions are made and then communicated to people who have an interest in them are key points.
	I may inadvertently have given some incorrect information to the hon. Member for Buckingham about the penalty. I am seeking further advice, but I can confirm that if the penalty is different from the one that I stated, it will be lower, not higher.

John Bercow: Drop me a note.

Paul Goggins: I will.

The Chairman: Perhaps the Under-Secretary will drop me one, too.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13
	 — 
	Maximum penalty for possessing for terrorist purposes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Rob Marris: Subsection (2) reads:
	"Subsection (1) does not apply to offences committed before the commencement of this section."
	Clauses 15(3) and 14(2) are similar provisions. Will any offences that the Bill creates apply retrospectively? Clauses 13, 14 and 15 specifically state that they are not retrospective.

Paul Goggins: My understanding is that, as with any legislation, the Bill will go through the House and receive Royal Assent, and that there will be a date of commencement. That is the date from which that offence and those penalties will operate. I hope that that   is clear to my hon. Friend. It may or may not be; we shall see.

Rob Marris: I am sorry to trouble the Minister on this,   but Ministers often tell a Committee, "Such an amendment is unnecessary because the matter is covered by existing legislation." When the Minister replied to my question, however, he seemed to say, "We do not really need that wording, because nothing is retrospective." I   generally accept that that is the position in British law; nothing is retrospective except in very exceptional circumstances. Yet here we have clear wording in three   clauses—including clause 13, which we are now   debating—that indirectly raises the issue of retrospectivity. That is why I am concerned. The Bill seems to be specifying something that would not normally need to be specified in any Act passed by the British Parliament.

Paul Goggins: That might be my hon. Friend's view, but our aim is to be as clear as we can be in the Bill. The   provision deals with an existing offence, so we want to make it as clear as possible that the penalty referred to in subsection (1) does not apply to offences committed before the commencement of the clause. We want to make that absolutely clear. I think that it is clear, and I   hope that, in time, my hon. Friend will agree.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15
	 — 
	      Maximum penalty for contravening notice relating to encrypted information

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Heath: I should like to put three brief questions to the Minister. Will he confirm that section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is not yet in force? Will he tell us why it is not in force? Have the police not at any time in the past five years asked for it to be put into force?

Paul Goggins: I can confirm that the section is not yet in force. I fear that to satisfy the hon. Gentleman I   should need to go into a level of detailed explanation that I am not in a position to do at the moment. However, I shall happily write to him with the explanation that he seeks.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) very properly pre-empted me by asking the Minister the question that I wanted to ask him. Will the Minister please also write to me with the answer? It is bizarre that an issue that we wrestled over at some length—and then wrestled over again when we discussed encrypted pornographic material and sex offenders—should still lie fallow, when apparently it was so urgently needed.

Paul Goggins: I would not dream of writing to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome without copying the letter to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr.   Grieve).
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17
	 — 
	      Commission of offences abroad

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in clause 17, page 16, line 3, leave out 'and'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 91, in clause 17, page 16, line 5, at end insert
	'and
	(c)   the action involves harm or the threat of harm to a national of the United Kingdom.'.

David Heath: Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 stand in my name and those of several of my hon. Friends, as well as those of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). They are probing amendments designed to give us a clearer understanding of the Minister's intentions in clause 17. As I read it, it appears to create a universal jurisdiction in regard to these offences. In other words, if anyone anywhere commits a crime that falls into the necessary categories and is a crime in the United Kingdom, that crime will be prosecutable in a British court of law. If that is the case, those crimes would become part of a small subsection of crimes that are prosecutable on that basis. Examples include genocide, war crimes and I think that there is another one, but it has escaped my memory—

John Bercow: Crimes against humanity.

David Heath: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Some sexual offences are also included. I do not argue against that, although I accept that the amendment would restrict the application simply to those crimes that directly affected British nationals or the interest of the United Kingdom through British nationals.
	I can see a counter-argument, which I ask the Minister to confirm is the Government's view: if it were to be restricted, individuals who were indictable for the offences, and who could not be extradited either to their country of origin or the country in which the crime was committed because of our treaty obligations, would not be subject to due legal process. Britain would therefore provide a service in allowing for a prosecution where otherwise the person would go free because the crime of which they were accused was committed in a country that perhaps retained the death penalty, thus making extradition impossible. Will the Minister therefore confirm the categories of crime that he expects to be caught under the purpose of the clause, and that we are applying a principle of universal jurisdiction in this area? If that is the case, he will have the support of the Liberal Democrats.

Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) introduced his amendment in a very low key way. I have been rather disturbed by clause 17, however, and would welcome his amendment and seek considerable reassurance before we let this extraordinary provision pass through.
	The effect of clause 17, as I understand it, is to make it a criminal offence for any person of any nationality to commit an act as described in the whole of part 1 of the Bill in any part of the globe, and to make that person subject to criminal prosecution when they come to this country. Somebody yesterday described the jurisdiction being sought as extraterrestrial—it does not go that far, but it is certainly extraterritorial on a grand scale. If one considers the totality of part 1, one realises that it is extraordinary that we are being asked to contemplate that proposition.

Dominic Grieve: I think that it is extraterrestrial—the scope of the Bill is not limited to the planet Earth at all, and on that basis, if the Bill applies outside the United Kingdom it must also be extraterrestrial.

Kenneth Clarke: As I understand it, were a little green man to get out of a flying saucer anywhere in the United Kingdom, and were he suspected of having committed the act of encouraging terrorism before he left the planet from which he had departed, he would immediately be subject to the provisions of the Bill. That puts another complexion on the problem.
	Of course we understand that there are a few very serious cases for which we accept the case for universal jurisdiction: genocide, crimes against humanity and things of that order. With the greatest respect, I do not think that large parts of part 1 come remotely near that category of crime. I will not rehearse the arguments that   we had yesterday about clause 1, as it stands, on the encouragement of terrorism. Members on both sides of the Committee were concerned about comparatively harmless, innocent acts of political protest that might be construed to be offences under clause 1.
	Under clause 17, we are being asked to consider that acts of that kind, committed by anybody in any country of the world, should be regarded as terrorist offences, so that such people could be arrested and dealt with if they came to this country.
	I can see that there are cases in which terrorist acts committed abroad should render the people responsible for them liable to arrest—such cases are tantamount to   crimes against humanity. Anybody who has blown up a school bus in any part of the world should not automatically expect to be immune from prosecution if they happen to come to this country and the British authorities arrest them on British territory. I accept that, but as I have said, that is not what part 1 encompasses.

David Heath: I do not disagree with the right hon. and   learned Gentleman. Perhaps I did present the amendments in a slightly low-key way, but that was because I wanted to return to the issue of definition later. If the definition is sound the clause is sound, but if the definition is not sound the jurisdiction becomes extremely wide.

Kenneth Clarke: I was not criticising the hon. Gentleman. I can, however, envisage enormous difficulties. Let us suppose that someone comes here from Chechnya, from Kashmir or from Uzbekistan. I will not go on: it would take a long time to recite the names of all the territories on which people have been guilty of terrorist offences, or at least of encouraging terrorist offences in the terms of   clause 1. That person would then find himself liable to prosecution for something that had happened a long way away.
	The defence will be—I know this, because it is in the Bill—that such prosecutions will be brought only with the consent of the Attorney-General. We shall hear the argument that we heard yesterday—that the Attorney-General will only bother to prosecute people who have been accused of serious offences in the country. As I said yesterday, I do not approve of passing catch-all legislation on the basis that we can make as many acts as possible criminal and justiciable, relying on a wise Attorney-General not to bother to enforce the law despite its wording.

John Denham: The Government might be storing up a problem. A number of Governments with whom we are generally friendly regard some of their own citizens as   terrorists, while the British Government have taken a more ambiguous view. In the past, the British Government have said "We cannot deal with these people while they are resident in this country, because they have not broken any British law." If this law is passed, will there not be intense pressure on the British Government to prosecute a range of people who are disapproved of in those other countries, although we would prefer not to do so? The Attorney-General will be in an incredibly invidious position.

Kenneth Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman has made a point that I intended to make. That is the other snag involved in relying on the Attorney-General's protection. Friendly Governments, including the American Government, might define some people from some parts of the world as terrorists, and the British Government might not entirely agree. The Russians would certainly regard many people from the Caucasus as terrorists, and we might not find that a non-controversial assertion. Again, I will not go on, but in the case of other regimes even more tenuous examples could be given.
	The Governments of those overseas territories will expect the British Government to use their authority, granted by Parliament, to arrest such people when they come to this country, and to deal with them. The Attorney-General will then not merely be acting in his capacity as adviser on legal matters to the Government; he will be seen to be making—indeed, will be making—a political decision, as a matter of public policy, on whether we should accede to the request of an overseas Government for someone whom they regard as a dangerous agitator to be arrested because he has come to our shores.
	Mexico must deal with Zapatistas, while half of Central America is dealing with Sandinistas and others. The examples are legion. The situation would be made more difficult by the fact that, as some of the bodies involved are very controversial, there would be political division in this country. Members of some parties in the House would demand that some South American fascist be arrested and put on trial while Conservatives demanded the arrest of some campaigner elsewhere, and the Attorney-General would be in the middle of it all.
	If someone had committed a terrorist act in Kashmir—had actually taken part in such an act—I am not sure that I would see any objection to his arrest and   prosecution in this country. When I was Home Secretary, I was concerned about cases in which people were organising terrorism in Kashmir from this country. We were inhibited in doing anything about it. In modern times, it is possible to organise a terrorist act in a very different jurisdiction thousands of miles away. But part 1 of the Bill, which includes this particularly difficult provision on encouraging terrorism, is not concerned with that category. I regard as utterly fatuous opening the door to Governments throughout the world making representations that a particular person in this country is "encouraging" terrorism—in the very soft terms that this Bill uses to create that offence—and demanding that we arrest the person and put them on trial in the British courts. That has absolutely nothing to do with what the Government have always maintained is the Bill's underlying purpose: to make us all feel safer from the   threat of terrorism here. This provision is opening up a political can of worms that Parliament should not contemplate.

John Bercow: I fear, Sir Alan, that my right hon. and learned Friend's concerns are justified and that they can be mitigated only if amendment No. 90 is accepted. I put it to him that there is another concern in this context. Given that a large proportion of asylum seekers come to this country from countries where civil conflict or human rights abuse is a fact of life, is there not a real concern that if this clause is unamended, countries from which people are fleeing will demand that the terms of this legislation be used against those individuals, or that they be herded back en masse to face a pretty grim form of justice at home?

Kenneth Clarke: That point had not occurred to me, but I   agree with it entirely. So far as I can see, successful asylum applicants could well find themselves immediately vulnerable to prosecution here under this provision, at which I have expressed my outrage. This is in no way a routine part of the Bill and I do not understand why we are being asked to give this provision universal application. It will take a great deal from the Minister to persuade me that we should take this wholly exceptional step in determining the jurisdiction of this country and the application of this Bill.

Jeremy Corbyn: I agree with what others have said about clause 17 and the two amendments to it, both of which I support. We have had this discussion about extraterritorial jurisdictions before, and the turning point was the case of General Pinochet. The case for his extradition to Spain was brought here, and the historic ruling of the House of Lords was that crimes against humanity, genocide and torture were universal in their jurisdiction. That is now accepted as fact, and everyone will agree that such major crimes should be universal. But I find it bizarre that this Bill seeks to make its many catch-all clauses universal, in terms of the jurisdiction of this country.
	Successful asylum seekers have gained asylum and refugee status in this country because it was deemed that they would be subject to irrational, unusual or dangerous punishment if they were deported to their country of origin; that is not, however, a judgment one way or the other on what they were doing in that country. Indeed, many of us have supported asylum seekers in their right to seek asylum in this country with whose politics or religion, for example, we profoundly disagreed. They are granted asylum on the basis that they are being granted a place of safety.
	On the question of interpretation, all those who took part in the struggle in Chechnya and who sought asylum in this country from Russia have been labelled terrorists by the Russian Government, whether or not they took part in any military activity. It is a convenient label for   the Russian Government to use. The same applies to those who in the past sought asylum from parts of   central America. The United States Government labelled them, saying that any Sandinista was automatically and ipso facto a terrorist because they were a Sandinista. That does not mean that they actually were, and in any event, who takes such decisions? The Bill as it stands would give the Attorney-General an enormous amount of work, and hand him a large can of worms.
	Another problem would arise if the status of an organisation in terms of political approval were to change. For example, the Kosovan Liberation Army used to be on the US State Department's terrorist list. It was removed and, after a period of reflection that lasted only 24 hours, was placed on the list of freedom fighters. The transfer was very rapid, and probably the fastest in history.
	Let us look at the example of a person accused of committing terrorist acts for the KLA. If that person came to this country, would he or she be prosecuted, under the terms of the Bill? Another difficulty has to do with the quality of evidence available in such circumstances. What rules exist to determine whether a person committed an act of terror? How could independent witnesses be found? How would the necessary evidence be gathered? I hope that the Minister can help with all those questions.
	The proposal takes us into dangerous and uncharted waters. As with previous clauses, I want to know why clause 17 has been included in the Bill. The amendments that we are debating would help a great deal, as they make it clear that jurisdiction would be restricted to the UK. They would protect us from the can of worms that would be opened up by the need to make subjective decisions about people involved in political campaigns around the world. The amendments would allow the protection of the Geneva convention to apply, in accordance with normal procedure.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful for the contributions that have been made in the debate, and especially that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. I added my name to the amendments because, like him, the clause struck me as a quite extraordinary provision.
	In part, the problem arises out of the definition of "terrorism". A definition that covered extraterritorial activity in the way suggested by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) would go some way towards resolving the problem, but by no means all the way. For example, an offence under section 54 of the Terrorism Act 2000 relating to weapons training would be caught by the Bill, even though weapons training that takes place abroad might be considered legitimate or even worthy if it were carried out by freedom fighters opposing a disgraceful regime. To put the matter bluntly, any freedom fighter involved in Iraq before the overthrow of the Iraqi regime in Kurdistan would be caught by the provisions of the Bill, but that cannot be   what the Government intend.
	That returns us to the point that, laudable though it may be to try to impose some universal jurisdiction in   these matters, close examination shows the task is impossible. There will always be a series of unintended consequences that make such a jurisdiction unworkable.
	My underlying anxiety about the Bill is that it contains—dare I say it?—the foundations of some new world order. I listen carefully to the Prime Minister, who has said that the rules of the game have changed. He never explains what that means, but it has begun to dawn on me that he believes in a new and universal world order, in which any form or manifestation of terrorism or violence against the state would be eradicated. It seems to me that that belief lies at the heart of many of the proposals in the Bill.
	That is all very well, but the whole edifice crumbles when subjected to scrutiny and to questions about people's right to take up arms against hideous regimes. We might be able to proceed only if we could achieve a   definition of terrorism abroad with which the Committee was so universally satisfied, in the same way   that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy   Corbyn) is satisfied about definitions of torture and genocide, that all hon. Members could feel absolutely comfortable that it described an activity that under no circumstances could ever be justified. I have to say that achieving such a definition would be fairly miraculous.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that genocide and torture are clearly defined offences in international law, so they can legitimately be prosecuted in this country, whereas, as he rightly pointed out, there is no definition of terrorism that can be applied either in this country or anywhere else, so the information that we would have to rely on would be subjective?

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely. We know that the United Nations has been struggling to find a definition of terrorism, which is very difficult, partly because many member states would be only too happy to have the freedom fighters who are opposing their own vile regimes so tarnished and so represented. There is a very real problem.
	The question is: should we divide the Committee this afternoon, or leave this matter to Report, to allow the Minister to go away and consider it more carefully? As the provision stands, it cannot stay in the Bill. The entire clause is wholly flawed. The question is: should we try to remove it now, or give the Government the opportunity, linked with what the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen is trying to do, to attempt to reconcile things? They would have to achieve what I still think would be a fairly miraculous outcome—a definition of terrorism abroad that we all accept, and linked to that, the creation of an offence of committing offences abroad that is wholly restricted to that type of terrorism and catches nothing else. Otherwise, we would be doing something that is both foolish and wrong. I   hope the Minister will respond positively to the points that have been made.

Helen Goodman: I entirely agree with what has been said by other hon. Members on this subject. When the Minister responds, will he also say something about how the Bill interacts with the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill, which is also passing through the House? There has been some discussion on that Bill, and clearly, the two are closely related.

Peter Robinson: When I first read clause 17 I   assumed that it was just badly drafted. I was reinforced in that belief when I read the explanatory notes, which make it clear that
	"The purpose of this Bill is to reform and extend previous counter-terrorist legislation to ensure that the UK law enforcement agencies have the necessary powers to counter the threat to the UK posed by terrorism."
	As has been said, the purpose of the Bill is therefore to safeguard our citizens within the United Kingdom—although I suppose that one could say that that applies to our citizens outside the United Kingdom as well.
	I therefore assumed that the Bill was incomplete, because it should have clearly identified, as the amendment would, the parameters within which clause 17 should operate. I had expected an early intervention by the Minister to say that of course that was what the Bill intended to do, and that whether he wanted to use precisely the language of amendment Nos. 90 and 91 or different language, he would table an amendment to the effect that the provision would apply outside the United Kingdom only in respect of acts of terrorism relating to citizens of the United Kingdom outside the United Kingdom, or acts preparatory to terrorism that would impact on the United Kingdom.
	It would be ludicrous for the Bill to make our courts, in effect, world courts, and our police, world police. To go down that road would throw up all sorts of problems for the future, so I hope that the Minister will confine himself to legislation that impacts upon the UK and its citizens, rather than trying to be responsible for the whole world. Let extradition treaties and the like deal with offences that might be committed outside the United Kingdom relating to other countries.

Paul Goggins: Not for the first time in our deliberations, we are operating in the context of a wider debate on other aspects of the Bill. The whole issue of the definition of terrorism, which we will doubtless discuss further, is relevant here. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear throughout that he is deeply engaged in that discussion and listens carefully to the points made. That will be evident throughout our proceedings. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that he thinks that there is a problem with the drafting of the clause, and we will bear that in mind because he is always constructive on such issues.
	For the benefit of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I would point out that the offences included are clearly set in clause 17(2)(a) to (g). The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has huge experience in this area, which I respect and take seriously. He anticipated the line about the Attorney-General and, of course, he would weigh the seriousness of the offence concerned. I agree with my right hon.   Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr.   Denham) that the Attorney-General will face some difficult judgments—as he does in every area of his work—at times, but I am sure that the Committee will have every confidence that he will be able to reach a decision.
	The measures in the Bill are intended to facilitate the fight against terrorism of all kinds and wherever it may   occur. We need to deal with the threat, which has to be seen increasingly in the international context. Clause 17 is necessary to ensure that we comply with international conventions that the UK has ratified.

Kenneth Clarke: The Minister touches on the role of Attorney-General. I do not doubt the Attorney- General's legal advice and it is his role to give advice to Ministers on such matters, but in this case he would be drawn into diplomacy. Much would depend on the current state of our relations with a country, whether some fraught issue was coming up at the United Nations on which we might require that country's support or whether some trade negotiations were imminent. If the Egyptian Government suggested that someone here was encouraging terrorism in their country through their speeches or the way in which they sang songs that appeared to glorify terrorism, or if the Turks had trouble with some Kurds living here, or the Indians had   trouble with some Kashmiri, the Attorney-General would have to ring the Foreign Office for the public   policy on whether to be helpful, friendly and co-operative with the country concerned. The Home Secretary has to do that sometimes. I remember negotiating an extradition treaty with the Indian Government that was closely bound to their relations to the Foreign Office. However, it would be wrong to pass a criminal law and rely on the Attorney-General's diplomatic judgment at any given moment as to whether we should initiate criminal proceedings to cheer up some other Government who believe that somebody here is encouraging terrorism or attending terrorist training.

Paul Goggins: It may be the Home Secretary's role to negotiate treaties, to discuss such matters and to reach political judgments, but it is the Attorney-General's role to make a judgment about the law. I am sure that all hon. Members would have confidence in him as he exercised that role, but it is a very different role from that of the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary.

Dominic Grieve: It is not just a question of the Attorney-General's discretion, but of what happens to the victims of totalitarian government. For example, let us consider what might happen if in Zimbabwe tomorrow there were to be an attempt to remove President Mugabe's Government by force, but it failed and some of the participants wanted to escape to the United Kingdom because they feared for their lives. If they were aware of the provisions of the clause, they would know that, because they had constructed explosives or weapons before their attempt to overthrow their Government, they had committed a criminal offence under UK law which would make them liable to many years of imprisonment. In those circumstances, they would not try to come to this country. There would be no question of their being able to ring up the Attorney-General to ask him whether they would be prosecuted if they came to the UK. The law as currently drafted is dangerous nonsense and I hope that the Minister understands that.

Paul Goggins: I do not accept the assertion that it is dangerous nonsense. I want to put a serious point to the hon. Gentleman. I do not need to explain to any Member that terrorism must be seen in an international context, which includes our obligations. The hon. Gentleman mentioned weapons training. To ratify the Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism we need to ensure that UK legislation reflects our international obligations. We also have obligations under the United Nations nuclear weapons convention. Our proposals, which the amendments would distort, would fulfil our international obligations.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister read out to the Committee our obligations in respect of weapons training under the Council of Europe convention? I   should be surprised to discover that the convention requires the UK Government to take a universal jurisdiction in the condemnation of all forms of weapons training.

Paul Goggins: I am not sure that these are the exact words of the convention, but article 14 of the Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism requires us to take wide extraterritorial jurisdiction, including over the actions of our nationals, irrespective of the nationality of their victims.

David Heath: Our nationals.

Paul Goggins: Indeed. Our obligations under the convention require that wider international context. That applies not only under the European convention but also under the UN nuclear convention. We need to consider the Bill within that wider context. The hon. Gentleman's amendments would limit the fight against terrorism only to instances where there was harm or threat of harm to a UK national. That would put the Bill out of kilter with existing legislation and would also mean that we could not prosecute those who prepare acts of terrorism against fellow human beings who are not British. For example, an attack planned against a British company in another country which employed only locally engaged staff would not be covered if the hon. Gentleman's amendments were agreed.

Sally Keeble: Are not the extraterritorial powers and their application similar to the South African legislation under which Mark Thatcher was caught when he tried to get involved in activities in a third country?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend knows more about South Africa and the reach of its laws than me, but I   draw to her attention the fact that we have obligations under the treaties and conventions that we have signed and we need to fulfil them. The proposed legislation will enable us to do so.

John Bercow: I should be very surprised indeed if there were a Council of Europe provision that mandated the inclusion of clause 17. If such exists, it is incumbent on the Minister to write to all Members specifying exactly what it is. I put to him in all sincerity that there is a circularity about the argument that he is deploying. He told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in all innocence and with a degree of insouciance, that of course the Attorney-General would make judgments on those matters because that is what he does. But what I say to the Minister, and what I think my right hon. and learned Friend was saying, is that of course the Attorney-General will do what he is obliged to do by the law, but it is quite wrong to pass a clause that requires him to behave in that way. That is the point. By the way, I am sure that the Minister will not forget to deal with the issue of asylum seekers that I raised, or with the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).

Paul Goggins: I hope to have the opportunity to do so in due course, and I am certainly happy to clarify the issue in writing to the hon. Gentleman, with copies placed in the Library for other hon. Members to look at.

Jeremy Corbyn: If the Minister could send me a copy of his letter to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John   Bercow), I should be very grateful.
	What reciprocity is there with any other country in the world that has sought universal jurisdiction for any   offence committed under some form of terrorist legislation? How does the provision fit in with the normal extradition process?

Paul Goggins: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) mentioned the new world order. We are dealing with a challenge of global proportions, and in meeting that challenge, it is important that we draw up agreements with one another across the international stage and that we honour those agreements. In passing clause 17, we would put into effect a number of our obligations under existing conventions and agreements.

Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman wisely cited his strongest point when he talked about the preparation of terrorist acts, which is covered by the   Bill. Speaking for myself, I would be prepared to contemplate British courts having jurisdiction over someone who came here if they were guilty of preparing to carry out a terrorist activity elsewhere. I hope that, before Report, he will try to think what the arguments are for extending that to the encouragement of terrorism, with all the arguments that we had about it yesterday, or to attendance at training places, given that he has said today that any kind of innocent attendance at a training centre is a loophole in the law that cannot be conceded. So a humanitarian worker is guilty of a criminal offence unless he leaves immediately when he suspects that some men are coming in from the woods in the evening and training somewhere on the edge of the village. Extending the proposal to those sorts of offence in the whole of part 1 makes clause 17 ridiculous and will impose all kinds of diplomatic and political problems for the Attorney-General and other Ministers as soon as other Governments realise that they can pursue their enemies here and try to get them arrested.

Paul Goggins: I know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier comments, which he now reinforces, that he has serious reservations about the range of offences covered by clause 17. I do not share his view that some bits of terrorism are more important or serious than others. If anyone participates at whatever level in either preparing for or carrying out an act of terror that results in the loss of innocent lives, that is a serious role and it needs to be covered by the Bill. Of course the court will take a decision about the appropriate penalty in the given circumstances of the case. I do not agree with him that some offences should be excluded and others included. The range of offences that we have included is fair.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon.   Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy   Corbyn) referred to evidence. Anyone who is prosecuted in this country for an offence is prosecuted only if sufficient evidence can be adduced in court to mount such a prosecution. Cases cannot be spurious: there must be proper and serious evidence. Clearly, if an offence that is caught by the provision is committed abroad, the evidence to prosecute here must come from abroad. However, of course, the evidence must fit our rules of evidence. If a case is tried in a UK court, the UK rules of evidence apply even though the evidence may have come from another country. The provision is not unusual. It applies to sections 62, 63 and 66 of the Terrorism Act 2000. So this is not a new power; it already exists. Clearly, we must apply the same rules of evidence as those that apply normally in our courts, even though the evidence may have come from another country because that is where the act was carried out.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked about the way in which the Bill will interact with the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill. Although they are two separate measures, I can appreciate how they interconnect. The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill will allow people to be excluded on the basis of acts carried out overseas, but people who come here as asylum seekers may be prosecuted under this Bill if they have committed an offence under it. Such people may be prosecuted, but whether they could be excluded would be another matter because of our obligations in such circumstances.

Geoffrey Cox: Does that not mean that the very reason why someone might be seeking refuge in this country could be the basis   on which he is prosecuted when he arrives here seeking asylum? As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, the measure is dangerous nonsense.

Paul Goggins: What the hon. Gentleman says is true. People who come here to seek asylum who have carried out terrorist acts may be prosecuted in a court in this country if there is sufficient evidence. However, it is equally true that under our international obligations, such people could not be excluded if there was a threat that their lives could be taken if they were returned to their country of origin. The two processes are not contradictory. People who apply for asylum may receive it, but they cannot be excluded if there would be any risk to their life if they were returned to their country of origin.

John Denham: Does not my hon. Friend realise that the provision could cover people who had not taken part in any terrorist activity at all in the other country, but had glorified terrorism, which might not even have been an offence in that country? If such people came here as asylum seekers, however, they would be guilty of an offence and thus face seven years in jail. It is ludicrous to jail people in this country for doing something in another country that is not an offence there, but the Bill makes that possible.

Paul Goggins: I do not dispute what my right hon. Friend says—he explains the situation clearly. A person who was in this country and had committed an offence by glorifying acts of terror could be caught under the Bill due to the international obligations that are being put into effect. That is a proportionate and reasonable response to the threat of terrorism that exists not just in this country, but in many countries throughout the world. We need a proper response to that terrorism.

John Bercow: I am genuinely astonished by the Minister's response to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). He agreed with the thrust of the description of the position that the right hon. Gentleman pithily gave, but then dissented from the right hon. Gentleman's verdict on that description. It is extraordinary that someone should be incarcerated here for something that is not illegal in the other country. I   politely put it to the hon. Gentleman, who has served with distinction as a prisons Minister, that there are great pressures on the Prison Service, but we are not a prison service for the world.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment. I was giving an honest response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, but it might well be that there is still disagreement between us. I take people who glorify and encourage acts of terror that result in the loss of people's lives—in whatever country they are, whatever their nationality and whatever their origin—very seriously. The Bill puts   in place powers to enable us to deal with that not just here, but internationally. It gives effect to the obligations to which we have signed up through the various conventions to which I referred.

Sally Keeble: May I flag up the opposite position to that put forward by other hon. Members? It is clear from several decisions of appeal tribunals that some people who apply for asylum here have been involved in activities that would rightly be considered to be offences under the Bill. Most of us would accept that the behaviour of some of those people has been unacceptable, but their lives could be at risk if they were deported. We must ensure that there is justice on both sides of the equation.

Paul Goggins: The balance is clear. We have obligations to people who may have been convicted of an offence but cannot be returned to their country because they may be subjected to torture or may lose their lives as a result of their return. These are serious obligations that we honour, and we intend to honour them in future.
	There are clearly many hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate. If they catch your eye, Sir Alan, I am sure that you will invite them to speak. I intend to resume my place.

Rob Marris: I ask the Minister to have another think about these matters. I understood him to say—perhaps I misunderstood him—that clause 17 is being introduced in part to comply with our international obligations under the Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism, and similar obligations. That confuses me because in the explanatory notes to clause 1, it states:
	"The offence has been introduced to implement the requirements of Article 5 of the Council of Europe Convention for the Prevention of Terrorism".
	Clause 1 refers to the convention. Clause 17, as I read it, makes no reference to that convention and nor to the explanatory notes. I ask my hon. Friend to think again and either to explain tonight or at some other convenient juncture what it is in clause 17 that is needed for us as a country to comply with these international obligations.

David Heath: We have had an interesting debate. I began by saying that I was moving a probing amendment. Goodness, we probed! The amendment has had the effect of probing a hornets' nest. We are now clear that what the   Minister is proposing goes well beyond what is necessary to meet international obligations. It goes well   beyond what some of us would see as a sensible extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction—I almost said extraterrestrial again, to please the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—in dealing effectively with those who commit or are to a serious extent planning terrorist offences abroad.
	Points have been made about the difficulty of those who seek asylum in our country. It is right that if someone is a terrorist they should not be given asylum in the United Kingdom. The problem with the Bill is that it goes well beyond the convention definitions of terrorism and introduces offences in this country that would be unknown to any other jurisdiction. It extends the scope well beyond that which is reasonable to exclude people from asylum in this country on that basis. That worries me. People have to give a truthful answer when they are asked what their experiences are in their country of origin when they apply for asylum. They are required to give evidence that will then be used to prosecute them because they have encouraged someone or a group within their country, whose members they believe to be freedom fighters in the context of their country's circumstances but in British law will be termed a terrorist organisation. That poses real problems.
	As I have said, the difficulty is still one of definition. It is a debate that we are still to have, unfortunately. When I listened to the Minister's response, including his truthful but extraordinary response to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), I was convinced that we could not leave the issue to Report. We need to tell Ministers that they need to tighten these definitions considerably if we are to agree to them at a later stage in our consideration of the Bill.
	On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I still maintain the position that there is a possibility of finding an extraterritorial jurisdiction that is based on clear definitions that meets our commitments by treaty that we would be happy to support. What we have heard from the Minister this evening suggests that we are a long way from that. On that basis, I think that we need to test the opinion of the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 211, Noes 303.

Question accordingly negatived.
	The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendments proposed thereto, put forthwith the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 68, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
	Question agreed to.
	Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18
	 — 
	Liability of company directors etc.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in clause 18, page 16, line 36, leave out from 'of' to end of line 37.

Sylvia Heal: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 105, in clause 18, page 17, line 1, leave out from 'of' to 'a' in line 2.

Dominic Grieve: Clause 18 extends a liability for offences under the Bill to bodies corporate. Where an offence by   a body corporate is committed, the liability will also lie with company directors and other officers. Under subsection (1), a
	"director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or . . . a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity"
	will be guilty of an offence committed by a body corporate. Such an offence can be committed because the person consented or connived in it, or because it was attributable to neglect on his part.
	That is a fairly remarkable concept. I am familiar with the form of words, because my experience of practising in health and safety at work tells me that it is lifted directly from that field. That may be appropriate when one is trying to achieve a degree of regulation, and when the maximum penalty is a fine, but it is a rather novel concept that a person should be sent to prison for life for having been neglectful in allowing his company to commit an offence.
	The provision could extend in directions that I suspect the Minister may not have intended. I am grateful to the   hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob   Marris) for giving me an example a moment ago. He suggested that if a licence was applied for to collect money in the street on behalf of an organisation that was acting unlawfully under the Bill, because it was raising money for terrorism, the mayor and the officers of the corporation who granted that licence would be liable to lengthy terms of imprisonment for failing to carry out checks on the organisation concerned. I cannot believe that the Government genuinely intend that. Yet again, we have an example of a provision that has been drafted astonishingly broadly and is capable of having consequences that are not only unintended but manifestly unjust.
	The amendment would allow for the liability of company directors and other officers in cases of consent or connivance but remove it in the case of neglect. I hope that the Under-Secretary can accept it.

Michael Fallon: I support the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) pointed out, the clause has a wide application. It covers part 1 and is therefore extremely broad in scope. I believe that it goes too far,   especially in its inclusion of neglect, which the amendment would rightly exclude.
	Neglect is not the opposite of connivance or consent and does not complete every other possibility, but it imposes a substantial onus on a director, member, officer and so on to be absolutely sure that nothing he does could prevent the dissemination of a relevant publication.
	Perhaps my hon. Friend could advise me—at no charge—whether the term "body corporate" in the provision goes wider than a private company or, indeed, the public corporation that he mentioned. It appears to me that the trustees of a library, the secretary of a research institute and even the treasurer of a very respectable mosque might be caught if they had not taken every conceivable precaution to ensure that they could not be charged with neglect in the undertaking of their functions.
	The clause applies to a large part of the Bill and its drafting is far too wide. The least we can do is remove the provision for neglect.

Peter Bottomley: When I was a trustee and member of the board at Christian Aid in the late 1970s, complaints were made that information that we provided about the conditions of people in South Africa in some way supported the violence that was said to be associated with the ANC. I fear that, under the Bill as drafted, my former colleagues and I   could have been accused—we might not have been convicted—of offences for which the clause provides. I   should like an assurance from the Under-Secretary that that is not the case.

Paul Goggins: I wanted to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Perhaps there have been so many interventions this afternoon that I simply did not pick the right moment.
	The hon. Gentleman may have a point. I want to take the provision away and consider it more closely. I will return to it on Report and provide greater clarity and perhaps even some different wording. If the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to agree to withdraw the amendment, he has my assurance that we will examine the provision carefully.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his response. The clause needs attention. The Bill cannot leave the House with the clause in that condition. It would have unjust consequences, including the bizarre consequence that a director of a company could be convicted on a lesser test than other people for the same offences. That is clearly crazy.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20
	 — 
	      Interpretation of Part 1

Richard Burden: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in clause 20, page 17, leave out lines 31 to 33.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 69, in clause 20, page 17, line 33, at end add
	'but in respect of Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 17 such an action includes any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate the population, or to compel a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act.'.
	No. 61, in clause 33, page 32, line 19, at end add
	'save and except where such government or international government organisation has, at the time of such use or threat, directly or indirectly been persistently responsible for acts that are in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.'.
	No. 75, in clause 33, page 32, line 19, at end insert—
	'(   )   for the purposes of this Act actions to be done outside the United Kingdom not involving the citizens of the United Kingdom or their property or the property of the government of the United Kingdom or of corporations registered in the United Kingdom or of businesses having an office in the United Kingdom and but for this subsection to be treated as acts of terrorism or Convention offences shall only be so treated if such actions are done with the intent of causing death or injury to persons who are not members of the armed or the security forces of the country where the acts are to be committed or are otherwise engaged in the administration of that country'.
	No. 84, in clause 33, page 32, line 19, at end insert—
	'(   )   In section 1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000, leave out "serious damage to property" and insert "extensive destruction to property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss.".'.

Richard Burden: Amendment No. 33 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin). I would also like to say a few words about the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 33 covers an issue that I raised on Second Reading. I refer hon. Members to paragraph 19 on pages 4 and 5 of the explanatory notes to the Bill, which makes it clear that a person would be regarded as committing a terrorist act if they did something
	"for the benefit of a proscribed organisation."
	I shall repeat the example that I gave on Second Reading. If an hon. Member, either directly or through intermediaries, urged Hamas to desist from its military and terrorist activities and to get involved instead in the democratic process in the west bank and Gaza—this is not a theoretical point; these arguments are taking place   in Hamas at the moment—I would suggest that   that activity would be for the benefit of a proscribed organisation. Hamas is definitely a terrorist organisation, and it is definitely proscribed under existing legislation. My reading of the Bill as it stands is   that such an act would become unlawful. That is ludicrous.
	When I put this to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading, he was very definite in his response. He said:
	"First, it would be to the benefit of that organisation, and secondly, it would not be criminal."—[Official Report, 26 October 2005; Vol. 438, c. 339.]
	I appreciate his giving me that assurance, but I still do see that in the Bill. It is what is in the Bill that is important, so I would appreciate it if he would tell me what he can do to clarify this matter, perhaps on Report.
	The main question that we are dealing with in regard to this group of amendments is the definition of terrorism. Yesterday, I was struck by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), when he read out a passage from "Homage to Catalonia". That book also had a major impact on my political thinking, particularly when I   became a student in the early 70s. Within a month of   my going to York university, Salvador Allende's Government in Chile was overthrown by the Pinochet regime. Throughout the 70s, while I was at university, I   found out a lot about what was going on in Chile. Exiled Chilean students came to my university, and I got to know them and learned a lot from them about what people were going through in Chile at that time. People were being herded into football stadiums; there were death squads. Some of those students said that they wanted to take up arms against the fascist regime, but I   could not regard them as terrorists. However, under the definition in the Bill, they would be.
	These amendments have to be considered in the context of clause 1. It would have been wrong if those people who opposed the Pinochet regime in Chile had murdered civilians. That would have been wrong even then. Even if they had urged such action, I would certainly have argued with them and disagreed with them, but whether I would have wanted to criminalise them is another matter. However, clause 1 as it stands would criminalise them. If we are going to have such provisions in clause 1, it is essential that, when we define terrorism, we draw a distinction between actions taken against civilians and non-combatants—which are not justifiable—and actions taken against the forces of a regime similar to the Pinochet regime. That seems to be the crux of the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham).
	One of the criticisms of the amendment is that it would not regard attacks on British troops as terrorist, which is true. In my view, however, anybody in this country who urged attacks on British troops would be guilty of at least incitement and probably treason. The fact that someone is attacking troops does not of itself make the attack terrorism. It might make it unjustifiable, abhorrent or treasonable, but it does not necessarily make it terrorism. Let us remember that every regime in the world that has faced some kind of insurgency—the South African one springs to mind—always describes forces that take action against it, if they are not regular forces, as terrorist. While we might want to tidy up provisions to deal with matters regarding British troops, we must not succour to oppressive regimes who want to describe people as terrorists not because of what they do, not because they target civilians and not because they are involved in genocide, but simply because they oppose them. Such a tightening of the definition of terrorism is the purpose of this group of amendments.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure us on the matter later so that we can discuss such issues in more detail on Report.

Douglas Hogg: I wish briefly to support the remarks made by   the   hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard   Burden) and to speak briefly to my amendment No. 75 in the same grouping.
	As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield rightly remarked, clause 20 really applies to the entirety of the Bill as it contains the definition of terrorism. As   the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr.   Marshall-Andrews) reminded us yesterday, it applies particularly to clause 1, which he rightly described as the most offensive part of the Bill, and I agree with him. The question of what is terrorism brings us face to face with the most difficult decision: what is a   freedom fighter, and who is a terrorist? It is extraordinarily difficult. At the moment, the Bill applies equally to those whom this House would regard as freedom fighters and those whom the House would regard as terrorists. The definition makes absolutely no distinction between the two. The question that we must ask is whether that is what we really want to do.
	The question can be judged historically. If we look back to the struggle of the Fenians in Ireland in the 19th   century, was all of their violence improper, albeit that civilian casualties were involved? What about the struggle of the African National Congress in South Africa? Will we all say that its violence was improper? What about the struggle in Cyprus by the EOKA, the struggle in India against the British Raj, or the struggle against the British in Africa?

John Bercow: Or the struggle in Darfur.

Douglas Hogg: Or, as my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position, the struggle in Darfur.
	All of us must ask ourselves whether we are prepared to assert that in all circumstances violence is wrong when it is designed to remove an oppressive regime. I,   for one, am not prepared to say that. What do I say about Mugabe? It would surely be right to remove Mugabe by force if necessary because his is an oppressive regime. Turning to the point frequently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John   Bercow), is that not also true of Burma? One must therefore conclude that there are regimes where there is no democracy and where the only way forward is by force.

Edward Garnier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Douglas Hogg: May I finish this point, and then I will of course give way to my hon. and learned Friend?
	I identified a curious paradox yesterday—we were told by a Labour Member that it was entirely right for the Government to seek to displace Saddam Hussein by force in order to achieve regime change, but if we urged civilians to do that, they would be committing a criminal offence covered by this Bill. Even more to the point, in 1990, when I was in the Foreign Office, we urged people to rise up and strike down Saddam Hussein. All of us who did that would have been caught by the Bill. I now give way to my hon. and learned Friend.

Edward Garnier: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Not for the first time, he has just made the very point that I was going to ask him to make.

Douglas Hogg: We must decide how to proceed. We can leave the Bill as it is—I shall return to that possibility in a moment—or we can opt for a whitelist: a list of countries where actions of force will always be treated as terrorism. That would be a political decision, I think that it would be an improper decision, and it would certainly be impossible to justify against a background of law.
	We can only ask ourselves what is the real vice against which we are striking. I think it is the deliberate targeting of civilians. My amendment, like those tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield and   the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr.   Denham), is designed to restrict the definition of terrorism for these purposes—that is, overseas terrorism—to actions against civilians. Our drafting may be imperfect, but we are currently dealing only with concepts expressed in statutory language.
	Ministers may tell us that we need not worry because the Attorney-General is the filter and there can be no prosecutions in respect of this class of terrorism without his approval. The hon. and learned Member for Medway dealt with that rather effectively, but I want to make a further point. The decision on whether or not to   prosecute over terrorism overseas is not a legal decision; it is a political decision. In effect, it creates the whitelist. In this context, the Attorney-General is a Minister and his decisions will reflect not a legal but a political judgment. I do not believe that we should legislate for prosecutions only to follow a political judgment. I hope that the Home Secretary and his colleagues will think again about whether we can somehow restrict the definition of terrorism so that we strike only at that which is deeply offensive and do not find ourselves outlawing the freedom fighter or those who wish to support him—as many right hon. and hon. Members have done in the past, and will doubtless do again.

John Denham: What I shall say about my amendment, No. 69, will follow comments that have already been made and will, I hope, begin to show the possibility of a way of dealing with the problems that we confront—the type of civilian murder promoted by al-Qaeda, and the type of international obligations that we need to introduce in response to events such as Beslan—while avoiding other problems, which have been well highlighted.
	One of the more disconcerting aspects of the debate so far has, I am afraid, been the tendency of Ministers not to acknowledge that there is a problem with the definition. I hope that at the end of this brief debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will at least acknowledge that there is a problem, which needs to be explored between now and Report.
	My amendments may not be perfect, but nor is the Bill. Attention has already been drawn to the anomaly of it being legal to invade Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but illegal to support the Iraqi people if they acted in the same way. I want to discuss the problem of   definitions more narrowly. There is nothing magic about the definition in the Terrorism Act 2000. It is not   based on international law. Other definitions are significantly different. The European Union Council framework decision, for example, lists much the same offences, but involves a much higher threshold. It refers to "seriously intimidating a population", to
	"unduly compelling a Government . . . to perform or abstain"
	from certain acts, and to
	"seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or international organisation".
	Those are high thresholds and they do not exist in our own national legislation. It is true that we have to ratify the Council of Europe convention, but it does not define terrorism. We are free to define terrorism as we want, as   long as we include certain specific offences, so there is no single agreed definition of terrorism. I am looking for a wording that we can apply to the new situation—the international spread of terrorism aimed directly at the   mass murder of civilians.

Phyllis Starkey: My right hon. Friend refers to a number of international documents and conventions. Should we not also consider the Geneva conventions—the so-called rules of law—which clearly set out that nation states must not deliberately target or harm civilians? If people exercising their legitimate right to resist an occupying force were also bound by those conventions, they would be permitted to attack soldiers in uniform but expressly forbidden from attacking civilians, whether armed or not.

John Denham: I will touch on that issue, which relates   to the report from which I took the wording of my amendment, in a moment. That report was by the high-level working group established by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in preparation for the 60th anniversary world summit. The group addressed the problem of defining terrorism legally, politically and   specifically. It concluded—I am paraphrasing, but I hope fairly—that actions of states such as war, occupation and genocide are already covered by international law in one way or another. Attempts to agree international laws on terrorism, excluding specific offences, have so far always foundered on what has been described as the freedom fighter problem—one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. In the past, that problem most obviously preoccupied the UN in respect of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, the Israeli occupation since the '67 war, and so on.
	The high-level working group made a very persuasive point. It said that there should be some international norms, and it approached the issue not from the political basis of the action that might be carried out by civilian or non-state combatants, but according to the type of action that is acceptable. It said that it does not matter what the cause is—deliberately targeting civilians is wrong. That is the basis on which it produced the wording that I have used in my amendment.
	There are two reasons to commend this definition to the House today. First, although it is not an intergovernmental agreement, it did come from a legitimate international process set up under the auspices of the UN. Secondly, it deals with the problem that this House has been wrestling with for the past few days, and for that reason it is to be greatly preferred, in dealing with the offences under consideration, to the Government's definition. Any Member of this House should be prepared to argue with their constituents that deliberately setting out to kill civilians and non-combatants—be it in Burma, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine or any future trouble spot—is wrong, no matter what the history, grievance or repression. That is why the wording of my amendment has been drawn directly from the working group report.
	I acknowledge that my amendment is not perfect. First, it should certainly apply to clause 21—the proscription clause—which was discussed earlier. Secondly, a number of colleagues have raised with me the fair criticism that we cannot appear to endorse attacks by terrorist groups on British troops, or attacks on those of our allies with whom British troops may be serving, for example, under UN mandate or under the auspices of NATO, as in the Kosovan war. That is an issue, but it is perfectly clear—I have examined it in some detail—that there are a number of ways in which we could bring within the terms of this Bill such attacks on British troops and other troops serving the UN.
	It is true that some extremely unpleasant—and, indeed, evil—acts that might take place around the world would not be covered by the definition in my amendment. We should recognise that openly as a problem, but the debate has shown that a much bigger problem exists with the way terrorism is defined for the purposes of clauses 1 and 17. That definition is so broad that it encompasses every act of political violence, even the most trivial.
	I see no way to avoid the truth that the House will have to come to a compromise in this matter. We must find a compromise between the all-embracing definition, which throws up huge problems, and a definition that excludes some matters that all hon. Members doubtless oppose.

William Cash: I am very interested in the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Would he consider excluding any actions in time of war or civil war?

John Denham: I shall have to reflect on that, and perhaps we will be able to return to it when the Bill comes back on Report. I do not think that there are any circumstances in which deliberately targeting civilians or non-state combatants is a good idea, although it clearly happens.
	In conclusion, the Bill is needed because a new situation has arisen in the world. Terrorism is not new,   but the type of terrorism associated with al-Qaeda and the tactics that are used around the world are new. If that were not the case, we would not be debating the Bill. The definition of terrorism that we use should be focused as closely as possible on the new problem that we are trying to tackle. My amendment is not perfect, but it begins to show the way forward. I hope that it will receive a positive response from the Home Secretary and that we can explore it in more detail next week.

Peter Bottomley: I shall make some brief statements about this matter. I shall not present an argument, as we must cover as much ground as possible in the remaining 25 minutes or so.
	First, whatever the final version of the Bill says, I hope that it will not prevent people from meeting those involved in terrorism. For example, Scandinavian intermediaries have often brought groups together, and that has led to settlements. It must be possible for people to make contact, as happened with the Government and the IRA. Negotiations did not take place, but contact was made.
	Secondly, we must be careful about how people can interpret what is going on. I once had to take legal action against the Sunday Express. I had appeared in the same hall as a person believed to be a leading member of the IRA, and that newspaper claimed that in some way I   was almost guilty of treason. I felt that I was confronting the person involved, but others preferred a different interpretation. That question of interpretation must be considered when the Bill returns on Report.
	Thirdly—I do not want to make this contribution too   personal, but I believe that my own experiences are   relevant—in my time I have met SWAPO representatives in Namibia and PLO representatives and their associates on the west bank, and I have also had in my home a person who turned out to be a youth member of ZANU-PF. That person is now strongly opposed to Mugabe, but at the time Ian Smith was Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and it could have been argued that I was supporting people who wanted regime change. None of the people to whom I have referred was, as far as I knew, involved in violence, but people associated with the organisations to which they belonged certainly were.
	Finally, I went on a human rights mission to El Salvador in 1978 to try to help delay the assassination of Oscar Romero. I met people clearly associated with opposition groups, at a time when that country's Government considered even Oscar Romero to be a terrorist, or nearly so. That much is clear, because that Government are correctly believed to have assassinated him.

Stephen McCabe: I   want to comment briefly on amendment No. 69. I support this Bill and want it to go through, but I do not want to be placed in a position that means that, because I want legislation to tackle terrorists, I inadvertently make it more difficult to support people engaged in genuine resistance or liberation struggles. I do not want to find myself inadvertently strengthening brutal dictatorships that continue to murder their people and which find that our terrorist legislation makes it easier for them to do so.
	Like other hon. Members, I believe that what we are asking for is abundantly clear. It is probable that all the amendments are imperfect, but our goal is to prevent the   loophole that I have described. We must not be put in the position where our goal of trying to tackle terrorists means that we end up making it harder for genuine liberation movements to do what needs to be done. In no way do I support anyone who wants to maim, kill, engage in violence or target civilians. We are asking not be put into a position that we do not want to be in.
	All that the Home Secretary needs to do tonight is to say loud and clear that he has heard us and that he will tackle the problem. There is no need for amendments to be pressed to votes, but there is a need for a total reassurance about something that affects supporters of the Bill throughout the House.

Alistair Carmichael: It is unfortunate that, because of the way in which our debate on the Bill is ordered, we have come to this debate at this stage. I think that the Minister would have had an easier time this afternoon if we had resolved on a proper definition of terrorism from the outset. I have to say to the Home Secretary that it is clearly now the settled will of the House that a definition must be properly placed on the face of the Bill, because what is there is less than adequate. I do not know whether amendment No. 69, tabled by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) is perfect. It probably is not—but it is certainly preferable to what is in the Bill, and if he is minded to press it to a vote, my hon. Friends and I will support him.
	The question of a definition is complex; there is no getting away from that. Clearly any definition will relate to the way in which an organisation conducts itself, and others have already spoken about the distinction between attacks on civilian populations and attacks on a repressive army, police force or state security force.
	The other element that has to be considered in establishing the full and proper context is the nature of the regime against which the struggle is taking place. The regimes in Burma, Zimbabwe and Uzbekistan, for example, have been referred to repeatedly throughout the past couple of days of debate.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that such matters were often judged historically, and he is right. Indeed, the judgment taken historically is often very different from that which was made contemporaneously. The difficulty for the Home Secretary—and, indeed, for the   Committee—is that we do not have that luxury. That is why it is important to get the best possible available working definition into the Bill. If that can be achieved, many of the reservations of my party about the workability of the Bill may well be answered.

Dominic Grieve: I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has just said. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has done the Committee, and the House, a good service in tabling the amendment, and if he were to press it to a vote we would support it. It clearly goes a long way towards meeting the Committee's concerns. The definition may not be perfect, but because it centres on the idea of using violence against civilians and non-combatants to achieve an end, it goes to the heart of defining the sort of behaviour that we can universally deplore.
	It is true that the use of force, even for legitimate ends, may lead to the unintended deaths of civilians, but one of the hallmarks of terrorism is without doubt the fact that it is usually aimed at civilians—soft targets—with the express purpose of creating terror and thereby bringing about change. I can think of no circumstance, not even in the midst of freedom fighting of the most legitimate kind, in which the targeting of civilians for that purpose can ever be justified.

William Cash: rose—

Dominic Grieve: I shall give way in a moment.
	That is why I think that the definition in the amendment comes the closest of all those that have been attempted, including my own, to meeting the need.

John Bercow: rose—

Dominic Grieve: I shall give way to my hon. Friend very briefly, because I am conscious that the Home Secretary wishes to speak.

John Bercow: I understand entirely the point that my hon. Friend has just made, and he is right to make it—but may I add that someone who calls himself a freedom fighter, but who nevertheless consciously targets civilians in pursuit of his noble cause, is not a freedom fighter? He may think that he is, but that is not the same thing.

Dominic Grieve: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

William Cash: I simply offer this as a thought, with reference to my intervention on the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). It seems to me that however desirable the intention may be, we could get into serious difficulties. I do not mean to be dogmatic, but on Report we must be careful not to collate these ideas in terms that would include war and civil war.

Dominic Grieve: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. The indiscriminate targeting of civilians, even in war, is to be deplored, although I accept it has been widely practised. Indeed, it was an allegation made against the British Government in the second world war—we have recently been remembering what happened in Dresden. It raises difficult issues and I acknowledge that my hon. Friend makes an important point.
	I shall listen carefully to the Home Secretary, but this amendment is critical to whether the Bill passes on Third Reading at all. The expansion of the jurisdiction to a terrestrial level can be justified only if the foundations are correct. If they are not, so much of the Bill will   collapse into pieces. Nothing would induce me to support a Bill that was in such a condition. I hope that the Home Secretary will respond positively.
	I am conscious of the fact that the Committee stage will shortly be over. In view of the way in which matters have developed, we may need a longer time for Report than is proposed at present.

Charles Clarke: I understand the point made by   the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about the timing of the debate on this group of amendments.
	Amendment No. 33 would remove the reference to the definition in the Terrorism Act 2000 and leave acts of terrorism undefined for the purposes of the Bill. Amendment No. 69 was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and would limit the definition applying to certain parts of the Bill to attacks on civilians. My right hon. Friend has also accepted that attacks on British forces need to be covered, as well as perhaps attacks on property that recklessly endanger human life.
	Amendment No. 75 tries to achieve a similar aim by   providing that acts outside the UK that do not involve British citizens or interests count as acts of terrorism or convention offences only if they are not done with the intent of causing the death or serious injury of   foreign troops in a country. Amendment No. 61 provides that attacks on Governments and international organisations are not terrorism if those Governments or organisations have persistently been involved in breaches of human rights. Amendment No. 84 would change the definition of terrorism to remove the reference to "serious damage to property" and replace it with
	"extensive destruction to property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss."
	This is an important debate and I acknowledge the seriousness with which it has been addressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to try to reach the correct conclusion. As I said to the Home Affairs Committee when I gave evidence on the Bill, there is good reason why the new offences that the Bill creates should be governed by our existing definition of terrorism, which Parliament has approved and which has operated effectively, without some of the fears that   have been expressed being realised, for five years. I   wrote to the Chairman of the Committee following my evidence on this very issue and I pointed out that there is no agreed international definition of terrorism and that all the existing alternative definitions are unsatisfactory in some way. I cited the EU code, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen referred, and the state of affairs of the current United Nations discussions to try to address the issue.
	I need to be clear about this issue because of possible misunderstanding. I accept that it is a difficult issue and that there are problems with the definition in the Act. I   accept and acknowledge that those problems exist. However, I also think that there are problems with the definition that my right hon. Friend offers us, although I mean no criticism by that. Therefore, it is important that we discuss precisely how to deal with the issue so that we may reach agreement on Report about how best to proceed.
	Having acknowledged the difficult nature of the issue, I wish to make a couple of specific points. The whole terrorist/freedom fighter debate has been dominant for some time, but I must say—I know that no one has suggested it—that al-Qaeda is not in the same spirit of freedom fighting that many "terrorists" have claimed in the past. However, that does not absolve me from dealing with the problem that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) mentioned about definition.
	I wish to make a couple of points about the possible definition that we could reach. It has been suggested that only attacks that endanger life should be covered and that we should exclude attacks on property. I find that difficult and I remind the Committee that our existing definition includes only serious attacks on property and ask Members to recall the Provisional IRA's attacks on the City of London in the mid 1990s. To suggest that such acts were not terrorist attacks seems to be missing an important point. The simple "property or not" definition does not entirely work.

John Denham: Although such an attack is clearly terrorist and would be defined as such in the 2000 Act, the point is that we are considering new laws that we never thought it necessary to introduce when we faced the PIRA attacks. That is why we need to look at the definition of terrorism that is appropriate to the new laws. My right hon. Friend is being very helpful, but I   caution him that relying on retrospective events for the basis of the definition, when we did not think that these proposed laws were necessary at the time, is a rather dangerous line of argument.

Charles Clarke: I understand that very real point, but if the 9/11 attacks had taken place when there was no one in the World Trade Centre or in the aeroplanes, the symbolism of the attack on property would have none the less been profound, as it would have been in an attack on the Pentagon or wherever it might be. I do not dispute my right hon. Friend's central point, which is that we need a different definition in the Bill than in other Bills. I understand that; his point is well made and I accept it for the purpose of the discussion. But simply to exclude property altogether raises certain questions that need to be addressed.
	Another suggestion is that only attacks on civilians should constitute terrorism. Again, I understand that; it is a logical point. However, I have to put to the Committee that there are definitional problems. Do the police count as civilians? What about off-duty soldiers who happen to be wearing their uniform? What about British soldiers currently serving in other parts of the world? I acknowledge that I do not solve those problems merely by referring to them, but they are real and they need seriously to be addressed.

William Cash: Does the Home Secretary take my point about the problem that arises in the context of civil war? For example, there is the Spanish civil war on the one hand or the situation in Ireland on the other. Will he give careful consideration to such questions before Report? Otherwise, we shall be in a hopeless situation.

Charles Clarke: I will give them serious consideration, but I make the point—not in an antagonistic spirit—that the definition of civil war is often just as difficult to achieve as the definition of terrorist or freedom fighter. There is no easy definition that solves the problem.
	I want explicitly to acknowledge the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen in his amendment. It is categorically our view that we need a definition that is wide enough to encompass the types of matter that I have addressed and we also need to restate the commitment made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety to look again at the issue of intent—a key point to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen also referred. Clearly, if we have a tighter intent test, the number of people who would fall within the ambit of the new offences in clauses 1 and 2 would be restricted, which might meet some of his concerns about the type of terrorism we would be covering. However, those are difficult questions and we acknowledge the points that he and others have made, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) in his intervention today, and we are happy to see whether we can reach agreement in a way that achieves more consensus on that point for Report. I acknowledge the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen seeks a slightly different definition in different areas to try to deal with those points.

Douglas Hogg: The Home Secretary may have just answered my question. Is he giving the Committee an undertaking that he will revisit the question of terrorism for the purposes of the clauses currently under discussion?

Charles Clarke: I am. I shall also try to seek agreement. As with all these things, I cannot promise to reach agreement because the issues are difficult. I should like to achieve a state of affairs whereby the UN provides clarity, which is why the discussions in the UN on the convention are so important. To be candid, I discussed the matter with the Secretary-General of the UN only a couple of weeks ago and there is an absolute ambition to achieve that situation. I am glad that the UN is taking a serious approach. The difficulties in arriving at an agreed definition are real and substantial, but that is obviously the right way for us to go.

John Bercow: I hugely appreciate the spirit in which the Home Secretary is addressing the issues raised by the   right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr.   Denham), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and others. I appreciate that the Home Secretary is looking at the nature and range of activities that need to be included in a definition. Notwithstanding the real difficulties, is he also considering the other side of the equation: the need to look at the environment in which people operate? If he wants to have an extraterritorial competence, it seems necessary to take account of the circumstances in which people are fighting.

Charles Clarke: I agree. In fact, that was the central theme of my speech on Second Reading, when I sought to refer to the spread of democracy throughout the world over the past 30 years and the important changes in the environment of whole countries and even continents.

Helen Goodman: Following on from the previous point, not all hon. Members share the Home Secretary's very optimistic picture of the state of the world today. One way to deal with the different situations would be to   consider sympathetically amendment No. 61 in reconsidering the issue before Report.

Charles Clarke: I will very much look at amendment No. 61 in the context of this discussion, but I have an element of optimism. Progress has been made over the past 30 years, and we should commit ourselves to trying to make progress in the future. That is the right way to go.
	Before I sit down, I need to make one other point in relation to the previous conduct of the Committee. In   exchanges yesterday with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and others, I   suggested that I had received specific advice from the   Attorney-General that the Bill is compliant with the European convention on human rights. I should clarify that the clear legal advice that I received was on the Bill's   ECHR compliance, which enabled me to sign the   section 19 statement to which I referred, and did not come from the Attorney-General personally. Further, in making that statement, I inadvertently breached the long-standing convention over many Governments that the fact that the Law Officers have or have not advised on any matter and the content of their advice should not   be disclosed. For breaching that long-standing convention, I want to apologise to you, Mrs. Heal, and to the Committee.
	Finally, I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment and hon. Members to support the Bill as arranged.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal, I have put a question to the Solicitor-General, who is sitting on the Front Bench, and to the Attorney-General asking them to make a statement with regard to the point that the Home Secretary has just made. What is the status of that question? I have asked for a statement and for the opinion to be placed in the Library.

Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Heal. Is this an exception to the rule that, when a Minister refers to a document, it does not have to be placed in the Library?

The First Deputy Chairman: If the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) wishes to table those questions, it is entirely up to him to do so.

William Cash: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Heal, I have done so: they are on the Order Paper today.

The First Deputy Chairman: If those questions have been tabled already, it is up to the Solicitor-General to reply to the hon. Gentleman.
	In response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), it is certainly not obligatory to do so.

Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mrs.   Heal, I am grateful to you for that—[Interruption.]

Kenneth Clarke: Is the Home Secretary giving way, or has he finished?

The First Deputy Chairman: Was that a point of order, Mr. Clarke?

Kenneth Clarke: I was hoping that the Home Secretary would give way, having just referred to me; otherwise, I   am bidding for a 30 second speech.

The First Deputy Chairman: The Home Secretary has sat down and concluded his remarks.

Richard Burden: In view of the brevity of this debate, it would be inappropriate to vote on such a fundamental issue. I have heard what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said.

Kenneth Clarke: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could confirm that his understanding is the same as mine: we now no longer know what the Attorney-General's opinion is, despite the press speculation that he is deeply disturbed.

Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend has heard what has been said. I have heard his undertakings. They are   welcome. Many hon. Members' views will be determined by what he returns with next week. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	It being Six o'clock, The First Deputy Chairman, proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [26 October].
	Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clauses 25 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Clauses 28 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Clauses 37 and 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Bill (clauses 1 to 4, 23 and 24, 21, 22, 5 to 20, schedule   1, clauses 25 to 27, schedule 2, clauses 28 to 36, schedule 3, clauses 37 and 38, new clauses, new schedules, remaining proceedings), reported, with amendments; to lie upon the Table.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Immigration

That the draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 10th October, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Draft Budget of the European Communities for 2006

That this House takes note of the Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum from HM Treasury dated 1st June 2005 relating to the Preliminary Draft General Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 2006, and the letter from the Economic Secretary dated 26th August relating to the Draft Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 2006; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.—[Joan Ryan.]
	Question agreed to.

Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House will be aware that today at Colchester the case against seven members of the Parachute Regiment who were charged with murder has collapsed at a cost of £10 million to the taxpayer, apparently. Scathing remarks were made by the judge about the unprofessional nature of the investigation that was conducted on British servicemen.
	Given the concern that is felt throughout the armed forces and the damage to morale that such a number of prosecutions is causing, have you, Madam Deputy Speaker, received any request from the Secretary of State for Defence to come and brief the House today? If not, will you be prepared to call for him to make a statement to the House at the first opportunity on Monday—given that the House is not sitting tomorrow—bearing it in mind that all of us have in our constituencies the families of servicemen and women who are currently serving in the hostile environment of Iraq and elsewhere in the world? We in this House need to give real practical support to our troops to ensure that such accusations are not made against those who are fighting for our country in difficult circumstances, only for them to find that their judgment is second-guessed by civilians in London, after which the case collapses at substantial cost to the taxpayer. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I hope that you will guide me on how we might proceed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have received no such notice of any Minister wishing to make a statement to the House this evening. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are, of course, now on the record.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Council Tax

John Horam: The House will be aware that there is great concern about the rising level of council tax throughout the whole country. Indeed, the nature of such protest is indicated by the fact that there are now rumours that the increase next year might be in the order of 10 per cent. I am thus delighted to present a petition on behalf of the IsItFair council tax protest campaign that is supported by more than 500 of my constituents in all parts of Orpington.
	The petition
	Declares that the year-on-year, above-inflation increases in Council Tax are causing hardship to many and take no account of ability to pay; further that the proposed property revaluation and re-banding exercise will make an already flawed system even worse.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons vote to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income. Such tax to be based on a system that is free from any geographically or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all involved parties.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Clerk will now read the petition presented by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills).
	[To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of supporters of the IsItfair Council Tax Protest campaign.
	Declares that the year-on-year inflation-busting increases in Council Tax are causing hardship to many and take no account of ability to pay; further that the proposed property revaluation and re-banding exercise will make an already flawed system even worse.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons vote to replace Council Tax with a fair and equitable tax that, without recourse to any supplementary benefit, takes into account ability to pay from disposable income. Such tax to be based on a system that is free from   any geographically or politically motivated discrimination, and that clearly identifies the fiscal and managerial responsibilities of all parties involved.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	The Petition is signed by Louise Bloor of Battersea Bridge Road, London and residents of North Swindon.]
	To lie upon the Table.

CHILDREN'S HOSPICES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cawsey.]

Robert Flello: I   am most grateful for being given the opportunity to initiate this debate on an extremely important subject. At the same time, I am disappointed that I need to join the long line of right hon. and hon. Members in speaking to and questioning Ministers about the funding of children's hospices. Such hospices have been in our communities for almost 25 years but there is still no proper means of funding their vital work.
	The current situation is disgraceful. We have a national health service that is being transformed for the   better by reform and new investment. It is a transformation that is designed to give local communities a proper say in how NHS money is used. It is a transformation that means that primary care trusts are receiving record amounts of money. I believe that the average PCT budget will grow by almost £42 million by 2006–07.
	In previous debates and questions Ministers have made various excuses for why children's hospices have   not been funded. For example, it has been said that children's hospices are badly supported by the NHS because they are relatively recent. After 23 years, that excuse can be dismissed.
	The single and most often repeated reason has been that it is not up to the Government to dictate to PCTs how much funding should be given to children's hospices. It has been said that there is no upper limit on how much money PCTs can give, but that it is up to the individual hospice to negotiate with the PCT on service delivery.

Lynda Waltho: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has been able to secure the debate on such an important subject. I wonder whether my hon.   Friend has shared my experience when speaking to   people involved with children's hospices; there is a feeling of utter frustration. On the one hand, Ministers say that money is available, but the problem appears to   be that it is allocated to the primary care trusts. That is where it gets stuck. Only today I was told by the chief   executive of a hospice that there needs to be joined-up thinking and joined-up working between the Department and the PCTs. That is where the biggest problem is.

Robert Flello: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those issues, which I hope to cover in my speech. It is incredibly frustrating that staff who do a fantastic job in this sector do not receive the recognition and support that they need from the PCTs whereas our communities are supporting them all the way.
	I shall take a typical example, that of the engagement of Treetops children's hospice which is in my constituency, with the 10 PCTs in the area that the hospice serves. For the record, I am delighted to have been asked to serve as an unpaid member of the Donna Louise trust, which supports the work of Treetops.
	The Government have an excellent record on working to meet the needs of children. Indeed, they introduced the excellent national service framework for children as part of the "Every Child Matters" initiative. That document set out a requirement for local statutory services to work with organisations such as children's hospices on the planning, funding and commissioning of local services. In practice, however, of the 10 PCTs contacted by Treetops—it was Treetops that initiated the contact, not the PCTs—only five agreed to face-to-face contact. One PCT has not replied to any letters and, in some cases, it took many months before a reply was extracted from the remaining four. Those replies basically said that the PCT was not interested. So much for full engagement by PCTs with service providers.
	How much have the five PCTs that met Treetops contributed to the hospice services that are recognised as important by the framework? One PCT chief executive asked that very question, and was suitably shame-faced when he was told, "Absolutely nothing." Incidentally, he has not put the situation right. How much do PCTs pay Treetops for supporting about 135 life-limited children and their families, more than half of whom are referrals from the PCTs themselves?

Lynda Waltho: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that there is an additional problem for hospices that cover a larger area? Acorns children's hospice covers the west midlands, Shropshire, Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire, so it has the tremendous problem of negotiating with 33 separate PCTs. I appreciate the problem my hon. Friend has raised, but in fact it can be even larger.

Robert Flello: My hon. Friend has highlighted the fact that hospices are dealing with a vast number of PCTs. It is a huge effort to extract any reply at all from some of them, and that problem is exacerbated if hospices have to write to even more PCTs.
	PCTs do not pay Treetops anything for supporting life-limited children and their families, more than half of whom are referrals from the PCTs. The hospice is funded almost entirely by public donations, and has also received some money from the New Opportunities Fund over a three-year period. The picture is the same up and down the country.

Adam Afriyie: Like the hon. Gentleman I serve on a hospice committee, and I support the Sebastian Gates action trust in my constituency. He alluded to the voluntary sector and the private donations that help to keep children's hospices going. Will he join me in commending the people who donate their time, energy and resources to those private trusts and hospices, because that fills the gap in Government funding?

Robert Flello: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I   join him in commending the work done by many people who put themselves out no matter what the weather, and who work hard to raise much-needed money from communities that want those services.
	Given the lack of funding, one might wonder whether the Government genuinely accept the need for children's hospices. The national service framework, however, states:
	"Palliative care services can include short-term breaks, counselling, family support services, pain management and symptom control."
	Those services, the framework states, should be
	"easily accessible, timely and in the setting of the family's choice."
	It goes on to say that co-ordination and close liaison between agencies, including children's hospices, is thus essential. There is therefore strong Government commitment, which has been utterly ignored by PCTs.
	As for adult palliative care commitments by the Government, in the Labour election manifesto we gave a commitment to increase funding for palliative care, but that does not extend to children. We have the perverse situation at the moment whereby a 17-year-old with cancer is not deemed suitable to fund, whereas an adult is. Can we really say that a child under 18 cannot be funded to die with all the support that a hospice can give, whereas a young person over 18 can have funded support? Does the Minister not agree that our manifesto commitment should cover children as well as adults?
	I am not, as the Minister might think, standing here asking for unlimited funding for all children's hospices, despite the Government recognising that there is no upper limit on the money that could be available, but I am standing here asking for fairness. It is quite simply shameful that PCTs can decide who to talk to and who to fund, and yet pay no heed either to what the Government are asking them to do with taxpayers' money, or to those taxpayers themselves.
	The Government have previously said that they cannot blanket fund all the costs of running children's hospices. But, again, that is not what I am asking for. The cost of running all the services, using my example of Treetops, is around £4,000 a day, a figure that I believe is comparable across the country, and yet the cost of medical care for each child is just £240 a night. Is it really too much to ask the NHS to pay for medical care? Is not that part of its remit?
	In some parts of the country, PCTs are at least going some way towards meeting their obligations to the communities that they serve by providing up to 10 per cent. of running costs for some hospices. But I am looking for a directive from the Government to primary care trusts, not asking them perhaps to think about it and if they cannot be bothered even to reply to letters, not to worry, but ordering them to instigate a process whereby PCTs must passport the medical costs of children using hospices to the hospice in question.
	To return to Treetops, let us take the example of a wonderful little girl who was telling me recently all about her visit to see "Disney on Ice". If she chooses, with her parents, to go to a hospice for respite care, the cost of the medical element should be met by the PCT covering the area where she lives. It does not need to be complicated; it just needs to happen. Where is the NHS free at the point of need for our children?
	I urge the Government, through the Minister, first to widen the scope of additional palliative care funding to include children; secondly, to put in place a process that will force PCTs to engage properly with children's hospices in accordance with the national service framework; and thirdly, to put in place a process that forces PCTs to commission properly children's hospice services in a manner that passports the funding for medical care.
	Before I close, I again pay tribute to everybody within the children's hospice movement and the caring public who support them.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to my hon.   Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) for instigating today's debate. I must congratulate him on his focus upon the work of children's hospices—hospices that make such a difference to the lives of his constituents. I am shortly to visit his constituency, and I look forward to meeting some of the people about whom he spoke tonight. In particular, I congratulate him on his work with the Donna Louise trust's Treetops children's hospice, based in his constituency, and congratulate him on his work to launch its funding for life campaign. Other hon. Members will have an equal interest in their own children's hospice and will want to hear what the Government have been doing to ensure that these and other support services grow and thrive.
	If the House will permit me, I should like first to set out the seven steps that the Government have taken since 1997 to weave a web of care around the protection and care of children. Since 1997, there has been a transformation in the understanding of the needs of children with life threatening illness and their families.
	Step one was the Department's immediate commendation of a report by the Association for Children with Life-Threatening or Terminal Conditions and their Families. That was closely followed by the second step, which was the NHS Executive guidance in 1998 which drew together the lessons learnt during a series of projects providing a range of care to families.
	Also in 1998, step three, a team headed by the Treasury invited applications to establish Diana children's community nursing teams throughout the country to build upon the work undertaken during the pilot project programme, and to blaze a trail for the development of home care for children with life-threatening illnesses. Additional funding of nearly £1.5 million for England was provided by the Treasury enabling eight Diana children's community nursing teams to be introduced in England during 1999.
	Step four occurred in 1998, when the Association of Children's Hospices was registered as a charity to promote the interests of the children's hospice movement and to develop public awareness and support for children's hospices and paediatric palliative care. The Department of Health has worked closely with the association since then to develop a better understanding of the issues. In particular, it commissioned the association to provide a quality assurance package to enhance the quality of care provided by children's hospice services.
	Step five occurred in 2000, when we started discussion with the New Opportunities Fund, the Department for Culture, Media and Sports and voluntary organisations to promote palliative care services for children. That resulted in the 2003 NOF awards, in which more than £45 million was awarded to 135 projects, including 71 awards to home-based palliative care teams.

Adam Afriyie: I am delighted that this debate is taking place, because the mark of a civilised society is how we treat our children. The Minister has mentioned the New Opportunities Fund: will he make it perfectly clear that the moneys from the New Opportunities Fund have absolutely nothing to do with the Government and concern expenditure by lottery distribution funds?

Liam Byrne: I will consider that point later in my remarks.
	Furthermore, 39 awards were made to bereavement teams and 25 awards, totalling £15 million, were made to children's hospices. Those projects are being assessed over a three-year period with a view to filling gaps in services and making children's palliative care provision far more mainstream.
	Step six occurred in 2003, when the National Institute for Clinical Excellence commissioned the National Collaborating Centre for Cancer to develop service guidance on child and adolescent cancer services, including palliative care and bereavement support. NICE service guidance supports the implementation of the national cancer plan and forms an additional structure to provide for children's palliative care needs.
	Step seven involved work with the Association for   Children with Life-Threatening or Terminal Conditions. The Department of Health funded the production of and commended the ACT care pathway guidance, which was launched last year to complement the children's national service framework on disabled children and young people.
	As my hon. Friend has argued so eloquently, however, seven steps are not enough, and we can and must go much further. To identify how the Government can best support hospices, we must understand how hospices are started, how they work and how they provide the services that make such a difference. That difference is already being made in my hon. Friend's constituency, where I understand that Staffordshire Moorlands PCT hosts the children's community nursing team on behalf of all four PCTs in north Staffordshire. The provision of palliative care for children is implemented through a team that provides comprehensive packages of care through two respite workers who work closely with families, and a nursing team that has two part-time social care workers, one of whom is from the city council and one of whom is from the county council.

Robert Flello: I hear my hon. Friend the Minister's comments about the PCT's good work. Where was the collaboration?

Liam Byrne: I agree with my hon. Friend and will address that remark directly in a moment.
	Several key themes emerged from ACT's work. In particular, it highlighted the importance of positively influencing the planning and development of future hospices. The association's experience suggests that the desire to set up a hospice often comes from the tragic struggle of a particular family, which can generate enormous energy and a single-minded determination to see through an important dream. To help ensure that such energy is channelled in the right way, the Department can do a great deal more to support innovative services. Crucially—this point lies at the heart of the debate—we must ensure that such services are sustained in the long run once they have been started.
	To help those with ambitions to set up hospices, the Department has provided funding for ACT to develop a toolkit on how children's hospices work. The toolkit aims to provide references to the sources of information that are required successfully to plan and establish a service, so that any new services can make more informed decisions about how a venture should look. The toolkit will provide a far better understanding of what is involved in starting and running a children's hospice service and an overview of the challenges and pitfalls that such a project may involve.
	Most importantly, the toolkit will emphasise the importance of consultation at the beginning of the process. It will also emphasise that children often need different sorts of services, particularly hospice-at-home services. ACT has commented that although establishing a hospice-at-home service is not an easy task, it is often possible to get it up and running far more quickly. Moreover, it can provide a more flexible option by responding to changes in families' needs and expanding or reducing in response to other external factors. Day care and hospice-at-home services should not be viewed as second-class options.

Lynda Waltho: rose—

Liam Byrne: I give way to my hon. Friend, who has such services in her constituency.

Lynda Waltho: I appreciate all the work that is being done to assist with new hospices. However, I am concerned about current funding for hospices that are jumping through all the hoops. They are being assessed by the National Care Standards Commission and providing exemplary care, but they are struggling. That is the biggest problem.

Liam Byrne: I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

Jeff Ennis: I   congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South on securing this important Adjournment debate. I am sure that he is aware that I have tabled early-day motions on the subject and had a similar Adjournment debate in the last Parliament. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, because he replied to that debate as well.
	The crux of the problem is that children's hospices receive only about 7 per cent. of their funding from the NHS, whereas adult hospices receive about 33 per cent. of their funding from the NHS. It is unfair to compare adult hospices with children's hospices, as the Minister said in the previous debate and today. Nevertheless, the fact is that adult hospices generally have to deal with only one, two or three primary care trusts because they   generally represent one town—for example, the St.   Peter's hospice in Barnsley and the Doncaster hospice—while children's hospices can be covered by up to 33 PCTs. The onus should be on the PCT to contact the children's hospice to set up an agreement rather than the other way round.

Liam Byrne: My hon. Friend has been a passionate advocate of children's hospice services in this House for some time, and I commend him for his remarks.
	Let me cut immediately to what the Government should now do, because we can and must do more. At the heart of the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is the way in which the local NHS works together to put in place services that make a difference to children's lives. He says that those services must change, and I agree. I will shortly launch dedicated guidance for that purpose—work that will build on and realise the intentions expressed in the national service framework for children and young people, which is mandatory on the NHS. That guidance for commissioners of palliative care is in the final stages of development, and I will ensure that the comments made by hon. Members are brought to the attention of the officials who are drafting it, which will be beneficial. The   guide will support health care organisations, local authorities and other partners, working together with them in children's trusts to understand and develop children's palliative care services and to apply the mandatory children's national service framework in its delivery.

Robert Flello: It would be beneficial for the Under-Secretary to see a children's hospice for himself. I invite him to Treetops to see the work that is done there so that, when he reads the paperwork that his civil servants prepare for him, he knows exactly what that means in practice.

Liam Byrne: I look forward to visiting my hon. Friend in his constituency.
	The guidance will set out a service model, describe the elements that should be present in the services that are   commissioned and give practical examples of approaches to providing children and young people with the services. It will detail the role that we expect commissioners to play in ensuring that they commission the right services in the right place at the right time.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, the local NHS receives record funding. There is no ceiling on the money that it can give to children's hospices, but the   funding must be co-ordinated. Hospices must not be trapped in a paper chase or, worse, at the end of a telephone, with no reply. The NHS and the local children's hospice sector have asked for guidance on important matters, and I am pleased that we can assist them through the publication of the guide. On publication, I shall ensure that copies are placed in the Library.
	The second step that we must take is ensuring that specialist commissioning is much sharper. My noble Friend Lord Warner made a ministerial statement on Wednesday 19 October announcing a review of NHS specialist services. A new taskforce will be headed by Scotland's former chief medical officer to investigate how the NHS currently commissions specialist services and consider ways in which to tighten those commissioning arrangements so that there is much greater consistency throughout the NHS. I undertake to ensure that the review is alerted to the specific needs of children's hospices.
	I want briefly to consider resources. My hon. Friend spoke passionately about the need to extend to children our manifesto commitment to provide funding for end- of-life care for adults. With the agreement of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), I   confirm that we will extend the pledge to care for children and young people with life-threatening conditions. I will make further announcements to the House as soon as possible.
	The outcome of the Department's White Paper "Your health, your care, your say" will be taken into account as we discharge our commitment. Ministers have held meetings with the national cancer director and officials to discuss how best to effect the commitment. Ministers have also met key voluntary sector organisations and the all-party group on hospice and palliative care.
	I pay tribute to the many Members of Parliament who have worked so hard for so long on behalf of hospices and palliative care services. Hospices make an invaluable contribution to the mix of services that children and young people who have life-threatening or life-limiting illnesses need. As well as providing financial resources to the NHS, we give guidance to the commissioners of services and to hospices through the Association of Children's Hospices toolkit.
	I am delighted that the Association of Children's Hospices, which is the umbrella organisation for voluntary children's hospices, has today agreed to undertake a joint launch with the Department of Health on 29 November of the toolkit on how children's hospices work and the Department's new guidance on commissioning. It will be hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Kerry McCarthy), and I shall ensure that hon. Members are alerted because several regional events to bring local hospices together will take place after the launch.

Adam Afriyie: I simply want to commend the Under-Secretary for his commitment to the funding for children's hospices, which are important to us all.

Liam Byrne: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I had the pleasure of debating with him before the general election. He distinguished himself in that debate, and he is already distinguishing himself in the House.
	In conclusion, I firmly believe that children and their families will be best served by a strong partnership between the national health service and voluntary sector organisations. That partnership has thrived and grown stronger over the past few years, and it will be very important as we set about putting record extra resources into the national health service, taking its total funding to about £92 billion, and creating a national health service that reaches the parts of communities that we have not yet been able to reach. We look forward to a continued good working partnership with the children's hospice movement, and, with the support of hon. Members, I believe that we will achieve that.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Seven o'clock.